102 


THE  COSMOS  and  THE  LOGOS 


BEING  THE  LECTURES  FOR  1901-2  ON 
THE  L.  P."' STONE  FOUNDATION  IN  THE 
PRINCETON  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY; 
ALSO  DELIVERED  IN  THE  THEOLOGIC- 
AL SEMINARY  AT  AUBURN,  NEW  YORK 


BY 

The  Rev.  HENRY  COLLIN  MINTON,  D.D. 

STUART    PROFESSOR     OF    THEOLOGY    IN    THE    SAN   FRANCISCO   THEOLOGICAL 
SEMINARY;    AUTHOR   OF    "CHRISTIANITY  SUFERNATURAL." 


PHILADELPHIA 

THE  WESTMINSTER   PRESS 

1  902 


Copyright,  1902,  by  The  Trustees  of 

The  Presbyterian  Board  of  Publication  and  Sabbath- 
School  Work. 


WITH  FRATERNAL  AFFECTION  I  DEDICATE  THIS 
VOLUME  TO  MY  ESTEEMED  COLLEAGUES  IN  THE 
THEOLOGICAL  FACULTY  AT  SAN  ANSELMO. 


in 


PREFACE 

In  putting  these  Lectures  into  print  the  author 
hastens  to  disclaim  any  such  delusion  as  that  he 
has  finally  solved  all  the  problems  he  has  tackled. 
He  is  well  aware  that  he  has  crossed  the  critic's 
path  in  the  very  audacity  of  his  undertaking.  The 
task  which  he  has  taken  up  embraces  nearly  all 
"  questions  in  the  world  and  out  of  it " ;  but  to 
make  it  less  comprehensive  than  this  would  have 
been  to  miss  the  real  meaning  of  the  problem. 

Every  thinking  man  is  a  philosopher;  he  has 
some  notion  of  the  world  in  which  he  lives.  He 
has  a  Weltanschauung,  a  world-and-life  theory. 
His  world-philosophy  may  be  superlatively  un- 
philosophical,  but  it  is  his  philosophy,  nevertheless. 
If  he  regards  the  world  as  wholly  given  over  to 
the  bad,  he  is  a  pessimist ;  if  he  regards  that  there 
is  no  world  distinct  from  God,  he  is  a  pantheist ; 
if  he  regards  it  as  such  a  hopelessly  inexplicable 
tangle,  that  no  man  can  really  know  anything 
about  it,  he  is  an  agnostic  ;  if  he  regards  that  God 
has  abdicated  his  throne  in  favor  of  man,  he  is  a 
Pelagian ;  and  so  on. 

v 


vi  PREFACE 

Not  many  of  us  think  our  way  through  to  the 
farther  side  of  our  theory;  but  that  theory  is 
always  in  the  background  of  what  little  thinking 
we  do.  If  we  regard  the  world  as  rational,  we  do 
well.  If  we  regard  it  as  ethical,  we  do  a  little 
better.  But,  in  either  case,  we  have  stopped  this 
side  of  our  own  conclusion  if  we  have  "  not  God 
in  all  our  thoughts." 

We  believe  that  there  are  more  skeptics  in  re- 
ligion made  by  wrong  and  shallow  thinking  about 
this  crooked  old  world  we  are  now  in  than  by 
thinking  amiss  about  any  other  world  that  is  to 
be.  Our  idea  of  God  affects  our  conception  of  the 
world,  to  be  sure ;  but  many  people  begin  at  the 
other  end  and,  accordingly,  their  notion  of  the 
world  fixes  their  conception  of  God.  And  such  a 
world  !  Evil  mixed  with  good ;  wrong  crushing 
out  the  right;  "virtue  in  distress,  and  vice  in 
triumph."  What  kind  of  a  God  can  be  inferred 
from  such  a  sorry  world  as  it  is  ? 

We  believe  that  no  man  can  reconcile  sin  and 
holiness  without  compromising  one  of  the  two,  or 
both.  What  then  ?  Shall  we  throw  up  our  hands 
in  despair?  Is  there  anything  more  to  be  said? 
We  believe  there  is. 

Sin  is  the  great  "  interloper  " ;  it  has  no  busi- 
ness in  the  world  of  a  holy  God,  and,  once  having 


PREFACE 


vu 


smuggled  itself  in — and  there's  the  mother  mys- 
tery of  all, — a  holy  and  loving  God  has  provided 
ways  and  means  for  getting  it  out. 

Unless  the  thoughtful,  reflecting  man  can  get 
some  sort  of  a  setting  in  his  amateur  philosophy 
for  the  sinful  world  and  at  the  same  time  for 
Christ,  the  Salvator  Mundi,  then  there  is  a  latent 
seed  of  skepticism  in  his  soul  which  forbids  the 
truest  and  healthiest  type  of  intelligent  Christian 
faith. 

These  Lectures  are  designed  to  be  a  modest 
contribution  to  the  consideration  of  this  great  and 
ever  timely  subject.  If  the  author  had  not  him- 
self once  felt  very  keenly  the  difficulties  which  he 
discusses,  he  would  never  have  dared  to  put  these 
words  on  paper.  But  he  profoundly  believes  that 
God  is  ruling  this  complex  world  of  ours,  and  that 
the  policy  of  His  rule  is  both  eminently  rational 
and  eminently  right.  That  is  to  say,  he  believes 
that  God  is,  in  Himself  and  in  all  His  works,  both 
infinitely  wise  and  infinitely  good.  But  we  must 
admit  that,  to  the  man  who  goes  forth  onto  the 
street  and  into  the  field,  there  are  on  the  face  of 
things  not  a  few  embarrassments  in  holding  to  this 
faith.  But  shall  he  therefore  give  it  up  ?  "  If  the 
foundations  be  removed,  what  shall  the  righteous 
do  ?"     Because  he  finds  difficulties  along  the  way, 


viii  PREFACE 

shall  he  therefore  abandon  the  search  for  truth  ? 
God  forbid ! 

It  will  be  easy  enough  for  the  reader  to  point 
out  weak  places  in  the  argument;  but  let  him 
hold  his  peace,  if  he  will,  until  he  can  suggest  a 
stronger.  It  is  easy  to  find  fault  with  things 
themselves;  it  is  not  so  easy  to  make  them 
better. 

It  is  a  large  view  that  is  large  enough  to  take 
in  this  disordered,  distressed  old  world  and  at  the 
same  time  a  God  of  infinite  power  and  of  infinite 
holiness  and  love ;  but  that  theory  of  things  is  too 
small  which  cannot  do  it. 

Faith  has  its  place,  both  large  and  fundamental, 
but  faith  is  not  "  believing  what  we  know  to  be 
impossible."  We  must  be  able,  somehow,  to 
accredit  to  our  reason,  directly  or  indirectly,  what 
we  accept  upon  our  faith.  A  faith  that  is  blind  is 
but  the  dupe  or  the  hypocrisy  of  superstition.  We 
abhor  agnosticism  as  the  very  Prince  of  Darkness 
among  the  philosophies.  But  there  is  immeasur- 
able difference  between  an  open-eyed  ignorance 
which  is  inevitable,  and  therefore  legitimate,  and 
an  agnosticism  which  blindfolds  itself  in  the  face 
of  the  noon-day  sun  and  then  makes  a  virtue  of 
its  blindness. 

The  limitations  of  a  lecture  course  may  account 


PREFACE  ix 

in  some  degree  for  the  obvious  unfinishedness  of 
these  discussions.  I  have  not  been  able,  nor  have 
I  cared,  to  change  the  text  from  the  exact  form  in 
which  it  was  presented  to  the  theological  students 
of  Princeton  and  Auburn.  I  have  had  some 
assurance  that  these  Lectures  have  stimulated 
thought  and  started  lines  of  inquiry  among  some 
of  the  young  men  who  were  patient  enough  to 
hear  them  through.  I  only  hope  that,  by  the 
blessing  of  God,  the  perusal  of  them  may  do  for 
others  what  the  preparation  of  them  has  done  for 
the  author,  in  this :  that  his  conviction  is  clearer 
than  ever,  that  back  of  all  the  shifting  scenes  of 
time  a  divine  eternal  purpose  abides,  and  that,  as 
the  ultimate  goal  of  cosmical  creations  and  careers, 
that  final  purpose  will  be  gloriously  realized ;  and 
in  this,  that  his  faith  is  stronger  than  ever,  that 
fundamentally  essential  to  this  process  of  realiza- 
tion stands  forth  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,  not  only  as  the  Logos  of  the  philosophers, 
but  also  as  the  Seeker  and  the  Saviour  of  the 
Lost,  without  whom  and  without  whose  reclaim- 
ing and  restoring  work,  no  satisfactory  world- 
rationale  can  be  found  or  framed. 

H.  C.  M. 
Philadelphia,  January,  1902. 


CONTENTS 

LECTURE   I 


PAGR 

The  Unity  of  Truth i 


LECTURE   II 
Modes  of  Approaching  the  Cosmos 37 

LECTURE   III 
The  Empirical  Surprise 71 

LECTURE   IV 
Ethical  Versions  of  the  Cosmos 109 

LECTURE  V 
Man  as  a  Factor  in  the  Cosmos 147 

LECTURE  VI 
Man  as  a  Spectator  in  the  Cosmos 185 

LECTURE   VII 
The  Cosmos  and  Special  Revelation     .     .     .     .221 


xii  CONTENTS 

LECTURE   VIII 

PAGE 

The  Incarnation  the  Congruous  Climax  of  all 

Revelation 261 


Syllabus 301 

Index 309 


LECTURE  I 
THE   UNITY   OF  TRUTH 


"  And  philosophers  tell  us,  Callicles,  that  communion  and 
friendship  and  orderliness  and  temperance  and  justice  bind  to- 
gether heaven  and  earth  and  gods  and  men,  and  that  this 
universe  is  therefore  called  Cosmos  or  order,  not  disorder  or 
misrule,   my   friend." 

Plato's  Gorgias,  Jowett's  Translation. 


LECTURE  I 

THE  UNITY  OF  TRUTH 
INTRODUCTORY 

In  all  our  intellectual  processes  the  unity  of  the 
whole  tract  of  truth  is  always  tacitly  assumed. 
It  is  not  proved;  it  is  postulated.  It  is  not  an 
achievement  to  which  we  aspire ;  it  is  not  a  result 
to  be  accomplished  by  a  long  line  of  reasoning ; 
it  is  not  a  far-off  end  to  be  reached  by  and  by ; 
it  is  a  part  of  the  complete  outfit  with  which  we 
begin,  or,  rather,  it  is  a  necessary  condition  of  our 
being  able  to  begin  at  all. 

This  assumed  oneness  of  truth  is  as  significant 
as  it  is  comprehensive.  It  is  a  precondition  of 
all  scientific  knowledge  of  the  world  in  which  we 
live;1  and  yet  it  is  not  so  obvious  a  truism  that  it 
may  not  easily  be  ignored.  As  a  matter  of  his- 
tory, it  often  has  been  ignored,  and  sometimes 
explicitly  denied.     And  the  trouble  is,  when  it  is 

1  "  The  unity  of  the  cosmos — in  some  sense — is  not  so  much 
a  conclusion  to  be  proved  as  an  inevitable  assumption."  Frof. 
Andrew  Seth's  Mans  Place  in  the  Cosmos,  p.  13. 

3 


4  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

denied,  the  inevitable  impossibility  of  demon- 
strating the  self-evident  is  encountered  in  meet- 
ing the  denial.  Indeed,  it  cannot  be  demonstrated, 
for  the  simple  reason  that  it  has  already  stealthily 
crept  into  the  premise  from  which  we  argue, 
while  it  also,  at  every  point,  sustains  and  affects 
the  process  of  our  arguing.  We  cannot  prove 
the  essential  elements  of  logical  reasoning  trust- 
worthy or  true,  because  we  must  necessarily  draw 
upon  those  elements  in  the  very  attempt  to  prove 
them  true.  Every  metaphysical  system,  however 
rigid  it  may  be;  every  scientific  method,  however 
presuppositionless  it  may  claim  to  be ;  every 
theory  of  knowledge,  however  exacting  and  bold, 
must,  in  spite  of  itself,  posit  certain  first  princi- 
ples on  which  it  takes  its  stand  and  in  accordance 
with  which  it  will  proceed.  The  first  note  in  all 
knowledge  is  the  note  of  faith.  We  must  assume 
before  we  can  prove ;  we  must  have  a  standing 
place,  a  nob  araj,  before  we  can  make  any  ad- 
vance. Coleridge  truly  says,  "  From  the  inde- 
monstrable flows  the  sap  that  circulates  through 
every  branch  and  spray  of  the  demonstration.1 
Credo  ut  ititelUgam.  This  is  not  a  matter  of 
choice  with  us,  it  is  an  absolutely  necessary  con- 
dition of  all  sound  thinking  and  right  knowing. 
1  Coleridge's  Works,  vol.  ii.,  p.  471.  Harper's  ed.,  1S84. 


THE  UNITY  OF  TRUTH  5 

The  corner  stone  of  every  noble  fabric  which 
man's  reason  has  erected  was  reverently  laid  by 
the  hand  of  faith.  Faith  contrasts  with  demon- 
stration, not  with  reason.  Knowledge  is  not  less 
knowledge  because  faith  lies  at  its  basis,  but 
more.  Indeed,  would  not  the  most  rationalistic 
of  us  be  ready  to  admit  that,  so  far  as  our  own 
assured  confidence  is  concerned,  immediate  intui- 
tion has  advantages  over  the  most  convincing 
mediated  processes  of  ratiocination — especially, 
seeing  that  the  one,  in  spite  of  all  that  we  can  do, 
is  at  the  foundation  of  the  other  ?  If  the  world 
rests  upon  the  shoulders  of  Atlas,  on  what  do 
the  feet  of  Atlas  stand  ? 

These  presuppositions  are  not  of  our  own 
making  or  choosing.  They  were  here  before  we 
arrived ;  we  find  them  on  the  ground.  They  are 
data ;  and,  whithersoever  we  may  trace  them, 
whether  we  may  regard  them  as  subjective  or 
objective  in  their  origin  and  nature,  they  an- 
nounce themselves  as  having  been  given  to  us, 
and  not  simply  given  by  us.  Neither  is  it  left  to 
us  to  determine  what  these  a  priori  factors  shall 
be  when  we  find  them.  Conformity  to  them  is 
itself  rational  thinking  and  the  invariable  test  of 
true  knowing. 

Among  these  presuppositions  it  is  our  business 


6  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

just  now  to  insist  that  the  principle  of  the  unity 
of  all  truth  has  its  prominent  place.  It  is  a  prius 
of  all  connected  and  systematic  thought.  Em- 
pirical science,  with  all  its  enlarged  conquests  and 
extended  domain,  has  neither  discovered  nor 
demonstrated  it;  rather,  by  assuming  it,  it  has 
only  developed  it.  It  is  of  the  nature  of  reflec- 
tive thought  to  bring  out  and  display  implicit  ele- 
ments which  have  all  along  been  unrecognized 
and  unknown.  Like  the  well-known  French- 
man, M.  Jourdain,  who  had  been  talking  prose  all 
his  life  without  knowing  it,  the  average  man  on 
the  street  has  been  assuming  philosophy  and  em- 
ploying logic  all  his  life  without  knowing  it.  He 
may  have  done  so  falsely  or  faultily,  and  it  may 
be  that  when  he  comes  to  a  conscious  knowledge 
of  them  he  will  use  them  more  correctly ;  but  if 
he  is  ever  to  know  them  better,  it  will  be  because 
he  has  been  innocently  assuming  and  using  them 
all  the  while.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  the  plain 
man  cannot  think  correctly  without  mastering  the 
scientific  anatomy  of  thought,  any  more  than  I 
would  say  that  the  master  of  thought-analysis 
must  be  himself  always  an  infallible  thinker. 
The  excellent  teacher  of  vocal  music  may  be 
himself  a  poor  singer ;  a  good  professor  of  homi- 
letics  may  be  himself  an  indifferent  preacher;  and 


THE  UNITY  OF  TRUTH  7 

the  professional  logician  may  be  a  very  illogical 
reasoner.  Human  thought  is  often  truly  said 
to  have  advanced  when  it  has  not  been  traveling 
over  new  ground,  but  when  it  has  been  bringing 
out  into  its  own  consciousness  that  which  had 
been,  from  the  very  first,  hidden  and  implicit  in 
all  that  it  had  been  doing.  It  is  a  great  advance 
to  make  manifest  to  ourselves  what  has  been  in 
the  dark  background  of  our  thinking.  Not  unfre- 
quently  has  it  happened  that  a  man  may  be  so 
unself-consistent  as  to  deny  explicitly  what  he 
assumes  implicitly;  and,  in  the  history  of  the 
world's  thinking,  a  philosopher  has  often  been  so 
unphilosophical  as  to  ignore,  or  openly  to  argue 
against,  certain  fundamental  implicita  which  are 
involved  in  the  very  fact  that  he  thinks  at  all. 
Accordingly,  we  shall  be  neither  surprised  nor 
dismayed  to  find  that  the  great  principle  which 
is  the  theme  of  this  lecture  has  often  been  over- 
looked or  challenged. 

By  the  unity  of  truth,  we  mean  that  every 
particular  truth  bears  a  certain  definite,  organic, 
and  more  or  less  determinative  relation  to  every 
other  particular  truth.  Every  specific  truth  is  a 
fragment  of  an  organized  whole,  the  segment  of 
a  circle,  the  bone  of  a  skeleton.  The  entire 
world  of  truth,  like  the  entire  world  of  reality — 


8  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

whatever  may  be  the  relation  between  these  two 
worlds — is  a  closed  circuit;  and  every  change, 
experience,  contingency,  event,  which  seems  to 
affect  only  a  small  region  of  that  circuit,  in 
reality  affects  the  whole.  The  infinitesimal  recip- 
rocates with  the  infinite  and  reacts  upon  it.  In 
mathematical  terms  which  are  conceivable,  al- 
though they  may  be  incomputable,  the  sluggish 
earth  mounts  upward  to  meet  the  falling  snow- 
flake.  Somewhere  Carlyle  has  mentioned  that 
the  fur  markets  of  London  and  Paris  are  affected 
by  the  aim  of  the  rude  American  huntsman  in 
the  valley  of  the  Assinaboine.  Everything  is 
definitely  related  to  every  other  thing,  and  this 
very  fact  constitutes  the  totality  of  being  into  a 
tremendously  vast  and  varied  organic  unit. 

But  this  were  indeed  a  small  truth  if  it  were 
confined  to  the  material  universe.  The  world  of 
mind  and  thought  and  purpose  and  endeavor  and 
achievement  and  character  is  an  integral  part  of 
this  vast  and  complex  tract  of  interrelated  reali- 
ties. In  the  broadest  sense,  spirit  and  matter 
combine  to  make  a  "  universe "  as  over  against 
what  Professor  James  has  called  a  fmtlti-verse. 
If  Cleopatra's  nose  had  been  an  eighth  of  an  inch 
longer,  or  shorter  for  that  matter,  the  destinies 
of  the  Roman  Empire  would  have  been  wholly 


THE  UNITY  OF  TRUTH  9 

different.  If  Luther  had  not  found  that  chained 
Bible  at  Erfurt,  we  can  easily  believe  that  the 
German  Reformation  would  have  taken  a  very 
different  course.  Man,  himself,  spirit  as  well  as 
body,  moral  as  well  as  material,  is  a  factor  in  this 
great  network  of  causes  and  effects,  of  relations 
and  results.  No  matter  now  about  free  agency 
and  the  power  of  mind  over  external  circum- 
stance ;  all  we  need  to  remember  for  our  present 
purpose  is  that  the  environment  reacts  upon  the 
person ;  the  material  world  affects  the  purpose  of 
the  spirit ;  it  enters  as  a  factor  into  the  thought 
of  the  mind  and  the  faith  of  the  heart. 

Nor  is  the  Infinite  Creator  an  absentee  alien  to 
this  realm  of  which  we  ourselves  are  but  a  veiy 
insignificant  part.  Rather,  He  is  the  substratum 
and  immanent  life  of  it  all.  He  is  omnipresent 
and  ever  active.  Atheism  refuses  Him  any  place 
or  part,  but  even  atheism  must  frame  some  con- 
ception of  the  God  whose  existence  it  is  bent 
upon  denying.  Deism  banishes  Him  from  the 
circuit  of  our  world,  but  deism  is  only  pro  tem- 
pore atheism,  and  its  frail  fortifications  have 
crumbled  under  the  blows  by  which  atheism  has 
been  shattered.  As  Dr.  Kuyper,  in  his  Stone 
Lectures  for  1898,  pointed  out,  modern  atheism 
assumes  a  most  definite  and  acute  relation  to  the 


io  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

God  whom  it  denies.  In  illustration  of  his 
thought,  he  says,  "A  government,  as  you  your- 
selves experienced  of  late  in  the  case  of  Spain, 
that  recalls  its  ambassador  and  breaks  every  regu- 
lar intercourse  with  another  power,  declares  there- 
by that  its  relation  to  the  government  of  that 
country  is  a  strained  relation  which  generally  ends 
in  war."  1  That  is  to  say,  to  deny  God  is  to  defy 
Him,  and  to  defy  Him  is  to  take  up  a  very 
definite,  conscious,  "  strained  "  relation  to  Him. 

His  divine  power  is  the  constituting  bond  of 
the  whole  world  we  know ;  His  ineffable  presence 
imparts  to  every  movement  an  eloquent  meaning, 
to  every  scene  a  mellow  coloring,  to  every  fact 
a  sacred  and,  though  we  may  not  discern  it,  a 
divine  import.  This  it  is  that  magnifies  and  dig- 
nifies the  cosmos  into  what  has  been  called  the 
"  theo-cosm " ; 2  and,  although  God  does  not 
become  merely  a  coordinating  factor  in  the  great 
social  system,  yet  neither  is  He  wholly  absent 
from  it  nor  inactive  in  it. 

We  shall  not  wait  now  to  consider  what  all  is 
implied  in  this  unity  of  the  vast  world  of  truth 
which  we  cognize    and    in  which  we    have  our 

1  Calvinism,  p.  21. 

2  Principal   D.  W.  Simon's  Reconciliation  by  Incarnation,  p. 

13«- 


THE  UNITY  OF  TRUTH  n 

place.  This  unity  is  not  only  contemporaneous, 
it  is  also  temporally  continuous.  This  is  the 
favorite  idea  of  recent  scientific  thought.  The 
great  law  of  Evolution,  in  its  most  general 
aspects  and  bearings,  is  based  upon  such  a  con- 
tinuity of  the  past,  present,  and  future  as,  despite 
their  incidental  transformations,  constitutes  them 
into  an  organic  unity.  Indeed,  with  some  writers, 
the  idea  of  evolution  is  sometimes  so  diluted  as 
to  be  scarcely  distinguishable  from  that  of  mere 
historical  continuity1 — a  thing  which  to  deny 
would  be  to  annihilate  the  natural  order  and  to 
destroy  all  scientific  thought.  Accordingly,  the 
tendency  is  to  inquire  into  the  history  of  things 
rather  than  to  inquire  into  the  things  themselves, 
and  thus  to  exalt  historical  studies  into  the  first 

1  Instances  are  by  no  means  hard  to  find.  For  example,  see 
Professor  Le  Conte's  Evolution  and  its  Relation  to  Religious 
Thought,  pp.  65,  66.  "  Evolution  as  a  law  of  continuity,  as  a 
universal  law  of  becoming,"  is  here  called  "  axiomatic,"  "the 
law  of  necessary  causation,"  "  a  necessary  truth."  In  the  late 
Professor  Drummond's  The  Ascent  of  Man,  we  are  told  that 
"Evolution"  is  only  a  harmless  synonym  of  "history"; 
"But  after  all  the  blood  spilt,  Evolution  is  simply  'history,'  a 
'history  of  steps,'  a  'general  name'  for  the  history  of  the 
steps  by  which  the  world  has  come  to  be  what  it  is"  (p.  3). 
After  this,  we  have  a  right  to  be  surprised  to  find  these  words : 
"No  one  asks  more  for  Evolution  at  present  than  permission  to 
use  it  as  a  working  theory  "  (p.  6). 


12  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

place  in  the  kingdom  of  human  thought.  All 
knowledge  must  come  under  the  categories  of 
natural  growth  and  biological  development. 
However,  this  much  is  certainly  true,  there  is  a 
continuity  of  things  which  is  the  very  basis  of  all 
history.  There  is  a  time-nexus  which  joins  into 
a  broad  unity  all  things  that  are,  however  diverse 
their  origins,  their  causes,  and  their  tendencies. 

But  it  is  time  to  consider  what  we  mean  by 
truth  when  we  declare  our  belief  in  the  unity  of 
it.  Pilate's  question  is  one  to  which  we  may 
never  expect  that  all  men  will  give  the  same 
answer.  Men  may  agree  in  affirming  that  this  or 
that  is  a  truth,  but  they  will  pretty  surely  dis- 
agree when  they  attempt  a  formal  and  construct- 
ive definition  of  truth  in  the  abstract.  We  have 
no  disposition  to  attempt  what  should  so  likely 
turn  out  a  failure. 

The  main  question  for  us  now  is  whether  truth 
is  in  the  thing  or  in  the  thought.  One  school  of 
philosophy  finds  it  in  the  objective  reality,  and 
another,  in  the  subjective  thought  or  thinker. 
Between  these  two  contending  schools  the  con- 
test is  bitter  and  uncompromising,  and  today 
they  stand,  face  to  face,  bidding  for  the  suffrages 
of  the  citizens  in  the  commonwealth  of  thought. 

One  of  the  interesting  developments  of  recent 


THE  UNITY  OF  TRUTH  13 

times  is  the  renascence  of  metaphysical  idealism. 
It  has  captured  many  prominent  university  cen- 
ters, and  captivated  many  brilliant  minds  that  are 
active  in  its  defense  and  propagation.  It  has 
changed  its  bases  from  those  of  the  early  part  of 
the  nineteenth  century,  and  it  now  aims  to  adjust 
itself  more  completely  to  the  demands  of  the 
empirically  scientific  spirit  that  is  so  characteristic 
of  this  age.  While  it  is  not  less  a  priori  than 
formerly,  it  is  at  great  pains  to  show  that  it  is  also 
sufficiently  a  posteriori  for  every  practical  and 
possible  purpose. 

Now,  we  are  not  so  ambitious  as  to  launch  out 
upon  an  attempted  comprehensive  critique  of  con- 
temporary idealism.  Its  rising  star — rising,  if  it 
has  not  already  reached  its  zenith — is  immensely 
significant.  It  is  a  homebound  return  from  the 
empty  husks  of  agnosticism.  It  evidences  a 
wholesome  reaction  in  the  direction  of  stiff 
metaphysical  thinking.  It  is  susceptible  of  ex- 
ceedingly plausible  presentations ;  so  much  so, 
that  if  its  underlying  principles  are  fallacious, 
the  stalwart  champions  of  a  sounder  philosophy 
should  bestir  themselves  to  check  its  bold  and 
persistent  assaults.  It  presumes  to  nestle  in 
very  closely  with  the  most  sacred  elements  of 
the  Christian  religion,  and  it  argues  that  it  can 


14  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

throw  a  flood  of  light  upon  mysteries  which, 
from  any  other  point  of  view,  are  opaque  and 
obscure  and  forbidding. 

Over  against  idealism  stands  realism,  affirming 
the  truth  of  the  independent,  objective  reality,  as 
such.  It  insists  that  the  mind  finds  its  world,  it 
does  not  create  it.  The  supreme  function  of 
thought  is  discovery,  not  invention.  It  maintains 
that  in  the  reality  of  the  objective  world  both 
rationality  and  morality  reside.  Science  only 
sees,  and  the  man  with  the  microscope  or  the 
telescope  is  only  a  seer;  nothing  less,  nothing 
more.  His  perceiving  mind  comes  into  direct  con- 
tact with  the  cognized  object,  and  that  cognized 
object  is  primarily  neither  his  own  ego  nor  an 
alter  ego  ;  to  him,  at  best,  it  is  simply  a  non  ego. 
It  declines  to  be  bewildered  by  erudite  distinc- 
tions between  reality  and  appearance,  between 
noumena  and  phenomena,  between  the  Ding-an- 
sich  and  the  thing  as  something  other  than  itself; 
because  it  insists  that  there  can  be  no  appear- 
ance without  something  appearing ;  and  that, 
while  the  thing  may  vary  in  forms  manifold,  so 
long  as  it  is  the  thing  at  all,  it  is  the  thing  "  in 
itself." 

Now,  one  of  the  peculiar  things  about  this  old- 
time  contest  lies  in  the   fact  that  both  positions 


THE  UNITY  OF  TRUTH  15 

are  so  easily  proved  while  at  the  same  time  they 
are  both  so  easily  disproved. 

"How  happy  could  I  be  with  either, 
Were  t'other  dear  charmer  away." 

Thus,  idealism  denies  the  possibility  of  the 
object  apart  from  the  perceiving  subject,  and  as 
the  old  world  certainly  was  an  object  before 
creature  men  and  angels  had  in  it  "  a  local 
habitation  and  a  name,"  the  inference  is  quick 
and  conclusive  of  a  preexisting  personal  per- 
ceiving God.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  seeing 
that  the  perceiving  subject  is  necessary  to  the 
object,  does  it  not  follow  that  the  object,  per  se, 
has  no  existence  of  its  own  whatever  in  the 
world  of  reality,  and  so  can  it  be  that  our  easy 
theism  has  carried  us  too  far  into  the  mazy 
meshes  of  an  impersonal  pantheism  ?  But  let 
us  see  how  it  is  with  realism.  Not  to  be 
outdone,  it  makes  an  argument  equally  good, 
and,  shall  we  add,  equally  bad  ?  It  naively 
declares  that  the  thing  exists  apart  from  all 
thinkers,  just  as  there  is  a  noise  far  out  at  sea 
without  a  hearing  ear,  and  form  and  color  on  a 
lonely  desert  without  a  seeing  eye ;  accordingly, 
it  claims  the  verdict  on  the  ground  of  the  universal 
and  unchallenged  experience  of  mankind.     But, 


16  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

are  we  not  to  heed  the  caution  that  experience 
cannot  testify  to  what,  upon  the  hypothesis,  trans- 
cends experience?  It  is  plain  that  the  hearing 
ear  and  the  seeing  eye  cannot  testify  to  what 
takes  place  in  the  absence  of  all  ears  and  all 
eyes.  Moreover,  if  these  realities  exist  and  per- 
sist entirely  apart  from  God,  then  in  this  God- 
less world  what  have  we  but  deism  in  the  sphere 
of  things  and  Pelagianism  in  the  sphere  of 
persons,  as  the  conclusion  ? 

You  will  understand  that  I  am  not  criticizing 
idealism  and  realism ;  I  am  only  seeing  how 
easily  each  is  supported  and  each  refuted.  We 
are  interested  in  testing  them  by  their  theological 
fruits.  The  one  is  made  to  answer  for  deism 
and  the  other  for  pantheism.  We  insist  that  it  is 
perfectly  fair  to  judge  pure  philosophical  theories 
in  this  way  by  their  theological  entailments.  Sir 
William  Hamilton  was  not  wrong  in  insisting  that 
no  difficulty  emerges  in  theology  which  had  not 
previously  emerged  in  philosophy,  and  Mr.  A.  J. 
Balfour  gave  us  a  truth,  which  has  a  conspicuous 
illustration  in  this  very  subject,  when  he  said, 
"  In  truth,  the  decisive  battles  of  theology  are 
fought  beyond  its  frontiers."  1 

For   ourselves,   we   must   say   that   we   are   a 

1  Foundations  of  Belief,  p.  2. 


THE  UNITY  OF  TRUTH  17 

trifle  suspicious  of  a  position  which  is  too 
quickly  reached  or  too  easily  held.  Command- 
ing points  are  seldom  seized  from  the  enemy 
except  at  the  cost  of  some  severe  fighting.  Lofty 
summits  are  seldom  achieved  without  some  hard 
climbing.  The  greatest  truths,  though  often 
simple  enough  when  we  get  near  to  them, 
often  command  highest  prices,  and  when  they 
are  too  cheap  in  price  there  is  danger  that  they 
will  turn  out  cheap  in  quality,  also.  "  No  object 
without  a  subject,"  gives  us  theism  at  a  single 
leap,  for  if  the  world  is  an  object  (and  who  but 
the  outright  pantheist  will  deny  it  ?),  who  but  a 
God  can  be  a  sufficient  subject  ?  But,  alas,  upon 
sober,  second  thought,  does  not  this  easy  theism 
turn,  under  our  very  eyes,  into  pantheism — 
Coleridge's  "  painted  atheism  "  ?  And  here  is 
the  standing  indictment  against  philosophical 
idealism.  You  know  that  a  man  who  is  charged 
with  a  certain  crime  may  plead  not  guilty  upon 
either  of  two  lines  of  defense,  namely,  either  that, 
although  the  thing  charged  is  a  crime,  he  did  not 
do  it,  or,  on  the  other  hand,  although  he  did  do 
it,  the  thing  charged  is  no  crime.  So,  some 
idealists  candidly  avow  pantheism,  but  demur  to 
the  charge  that  pantheism  is  an  error;  while 
others  stoutly  disclaim  the  pantheistic    corollary 


1 8  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

as  a  11011  scqiiitnr.  Here  we  believe  history  is 
against  their  defense.  It  is  at  the  expense  of 
logic  and  self-consistency  that  idealism  halts  this 
side  of  pantheism.  Henri-Frederic  Amiel  be- 
lieved that  if  "  Christianity  is  to  triumph  over 
pantheism,  it  must  absorb  it."  x  So  much  is  cer- 
tain :  if  Christianity  is  to  continue  to  be  Christian, 
it  must  beware  lest  pantheism  absorb  it.  And 
herein  is  the  cause  of  the  theological  suspicion  of 
the  brilliant  plausibilities  of  present-day  idealism. 
We  are  thankful  that  we  need  not  complete  the 
task  of  clearing  the  philosophical  deck  before  we 
proceed  to  some  sort  of  theological  action. 
There  are  certain  preliminary  reckonings  which 
must  be  made  with  our  jealous  friends,  the  meta- 
physicians, and  they  are  sometimes  very  delicate 
and  very  decisive.  No  positivist  could  be  a  con- 
sistent supralapsarian  and  no  agnostic  could 
accept  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  with- 
out more  radical  revisions  than  it  is  likely  soon  to 
undergo.  Still,  we  may  considerately  leave  some 
things  for  the  philosophers  to  settle  among  them- 
selves. And  so,  we  may  let  the  idealist  and  the 
realist  fight  it  out  along  their  own  lines,  to  their 
hearts'  content.  It  is  a  long  battle,  and  the  end  is 
not  in  sight.  Only  when  their  tactics  obstruct  our 
1  Journal,  October  I,  1901. 


THE  UNITY  OF  TRUTH 


*9 


path  do  we  need  to  take  a  hand  in  the  fray.  And 
this  is  the  very  thing  which  often  happens.  The  re- 
lation between  theology  and  philosophy  is  exceed- 
ingly intimate,  and  yet  they  are  not  the  same.  It  is 
only  when  philosophy  goes  out  of  its  way  to  chal- 
lenge the  rights  or  to  harass  the  labors  of  theology 
that  students  of  the  latter  need  to  devote  them- 
selves to  the  adjustment  of  philosophical  problems. 
Judging  the  claims  of  idealism  and  realism,  as 
bearing  upon  the  present  thesis,  we  should  prefer 
to  occupy  a  position  that  might  be  called  eclectic 
or  synthetic.  We  would  covet  the  good  and 
eschew  the  evil  in  both;  for,  assuredly,  there  are 
good  and  evil  in  both.  We  must  trust  to  each  to 
set  forth  its  own  virtues  as  well  as  the  vices  of 
its  rival.  The  realist  being  judge,  idealism  is 
haughty,  quasi-omniscient,  rationalistic,  and  pan- 
theistic. Idealism  being  judge,  realism  is  raw, 
crudely  lumpish,  empirical,  agnostic,  and  absurd. 
There  is  no  word  in  the  English  language — not 
even  excepting  Evolution,  or  Socialism,  or  Mys- 
ticism—that is  made  to  carry  more  different  mean- 
ings than  this  word  Idealism.  We  do  believe  in 
such  an  idealism  as  teaches  that  every  object  is 
the  embodiment  of  an  idea.  We  accept  idealism 
if  it  means  that  the  objective  world  is  a  cosmos, 
and  not  a  crude  chaos;  that  there  is  a  rationality 


20  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

in  things,  or,  at  least,  in  the  totality  of  things. 
We  do  not  need  to  annihilate  matter,  in  the  in- 
terest of  an  idealistic  monism,  in  order  to  believe 
that,  before  matter  existed,  the  eternal  self-existent 
God  alone  existed.1  We  believe  that  matter  is 
for  mind,  and  not  mind  for  matter.  We  believe 
that  any  scientific  theory  which  idealizes  matter 
away  from  itself  is  only  a  juggling  with  words 
and  trifling  with  thoughts.  We  believe  that 
ontological  realities,  apart  from  our  cognizing 
minds,  are  to  us  relatively  as  if  they  were  non- 
existent, and,  therefore,  as  if  they  were  absolutely 
non  est ;  and  we  believe  that  a  world  of  matter, 
apart  and  independent  from  a  world  of  mind,  is  a 
philosophical  impossibility,  a  theological  absurd- 
ity. We  believe,  with  Professor  Bowne,  that  "  a 
system  of  objects  is  meaningless,  apart  from  a 
mind  and  consciousness  in  and  for  which  they 
exist,"  and  "  that  the  world  of  things  is  so  com- 
pletely a  world  of  ideas  as  to  have  no  meaning 
except  in  relation  to  mind  and  consciousness." 2 
We  believe  that  the  phenomenal  world  is  not  an 
ego,  but  that  it  is  ego-morphic,  I-like ;  and  that, 
seeing  that  our  epistemology  is  always  the  test 
of  our  ontology,  Professor   Ladd  has  not  put  it 

1  Sec  Prof.  Bovvne's  Theory  of  Thought  and  Knowledge,  p.  310. 
2 Ibid.,  p.  327. 


THE  UNITY  OF  TRUTH  21 

too  strongly  when  he  says,  in  his  own  italics, 
"Human  cognition  is  all  to  be  understood  as  a 
species  of  intercourse  between  winds  "  ;  and,  again, 
"  Things  are  the  manifestation,  the  word  to  man, 
of  an  all-pervading  Will  and  Mind."1  We  can 
repeat  these  words,  after  a  recent  cautious  and 
conservative  writer,  in  a  very  valuable  lecture  on 
the  Idealistic  Philosophy  :  "  I  accept  it  [idealism] 
in  so  far  as  they  tell  me  that  mind  is  first  in  the 
universe,  and  that  the  universe  has  a  meaning.  I 
accept  it  when  they  tell  me  of  experience  of  the 
distinction  of  subject  and  object,  and  of  the  truth 
that  all  objects  are  for  the  subject.  I  follow 
gladly,  as  they  take  this  living,  breathing,  con- 
crete self  of  mine,  and  show  me  that  the  analysis 
of  this  real  self  and  of  the  conditions  of  its  life, 
thought,  and  action,  gives,  or  imperatively  de- 
mands, the  cosmos,  that  is  to  say,  they  show  me 
that  my  experience  is  possible  only  if  I  am  in  a 
rational  world,  to  which  I  am  related  and  which 
is  related  to  me.  The  world  they  show  me  is  not 
a  huge  contemporaneity,  but  an  ordered  world, 
each  part  related  to  each,  and  all  bound  together 
in  relations  which  can  be  thought." 2 

1  Philosophy  of  K>iowlcdge,  pp.  558,  606. 

2  Prof.  James  Iverach's  Theism  in  the  Light  of  Present  Science 
and  Philosophy,  pp.  300,  301. 


22  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

All  this  is  not  to  refine  matter  into  spirit  nor  to 
coagulate  spirit  into  matter ;  it  is,  as  we  understand 
it,  an  idealism  which  makes  the  world  of  things  an 
embodiment  of  a  world  of  ideas.  Anything  less 
than  this  we  regard  as  vicious  epistemology,  bad 
philosophy,  the  confusion  of  experience,  the  de- 
struction of  science,  and  an  effectual  bar  against 
any  intellectual  commerce  between  man  and  the 
world  in  which  he  dwells. 

This  ought  to  suffice,  in  limine,  if  we  mistake 
not,  as  a  sort  of  philosophical  confession  of  faith. 
Truth  is  not  in  the  thing  only;  it  is  not  in  the 
thought  only;  it  is  in  the  thing  as  the  expression 
of  the  thought.  Matter  is  more  than  "  coarsened 
thought,"  as  Amiel  called  it ;  but  there  is  thought 
there  first  of  all,  and  it  is  because  of  that  thought 
that  we  can  cognize  matter  and  study  it.  It  is 
because  of  this  thought  that  we  can  read  thought 
not  simply  into  it,  but  in  it.  Our  idealism  is  an 
idealism  which  holds  to  the  meaningfulness  of  the 
world,  rather  than  to  a  speculative  theory  as  to 
the  essence  of  the  world ;  that  regards  the  world 
as  the  expression  of  an  idea  rather  than  nothing 
but  an  idea;  that  finds  the  traces  of  Personality 
all  about  us  in  that  which  is,  in  itself  and  as  we 
see  it,  somewhat  other  than  personality. 

I  trust  that  this  long  digression  will  not  appear 


THE  UNITY  OF  TRUTH  23 

to  have  been  wholly  in  vain  when  we  observe,  as 
can  be  done  at  a  glance,  how  it  lends  itself  to. the 
setting  forth  of  my  main  idea  of  the  unity  of 
truth.  Truth,  as  we  know  it,  is  the  expression 
of  thought ;  as  it  is,  it  is  thought.  Whatever  is, 
therefore,  in  the  objective  world  of  experience  is 
capable  of  placement  in  the  subjective  world  of 
thought.  Now,  if  there  is  such  a  unity  in  the 
whole  world  of  reality  and,  consequently  more- 
over, in  the  whole  world  of  truth,  and  if  the  bonds 
which  bind  its  parts  into  one  are  intelligible  and 
thinkable,  then  this  of  itself  is  a  sufficient  chal- 
lenge to  profoundest  mental  inquiiy  and  widest 
cosmical  research.  If  the  desire  to  know  is  a  sin, 
then  the  soul  of  man  is  indeed  an  original  sinner. 
We  all  have  heard  of  that  typical  German  thinker 
— Lessing,  I  believe  it  was — who  distinguished 
himself  by  saying  that  if  he  had  truth  offered  him 
on  one  side  and  the  pursuit  of  truth  on  the  other, 
he  would  quickly  choose  the  latter ;  but  we  must 
not  forget  that  the  earnest  pursuit  of  truth  has  the 
possession  of  it  for  its  constant  goal. 

But,  in  our  inevitably  partial  acquisitions  of 
truth,  we  must  avoid  merely  quantitative  stand- 
ards;  for,  knowledge,  like  wisdom,  is  rather  a 
thing  of  quality  than  of  quantity.  A  rude  and 
illiterate  Indian  may  know  the  world  and  life  far 


24  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

better  than  does  the  stuffed  bachelor  of  arts, 
fresh  from  the  great  university.  An  ignorant 
fisherman  may  often  instruct  the  expert  ichthyolo- 
gist ;  and  the  untaught  miner  knows  more  about 
mining  than  the  master  of  the  science  of  miner- 
alogy.  Cosmical  knowledge  is  not  always  great- 
est with  him  who  has  piled  up  the  largest  stock 
of  mechanical  facts  about  the  world ;  it  is  great- 
est with  him  who  knows  the  world  best,  who  has 
learned  its  tricks,  caught  its  caprices,  and  read  its 
thoughts.  The  world  is  an  organism,  not  a 
mechanism ;  and  he  who  knows  it  as  such  is  far 
ahead  of  his  neighbor  who  has  learned  this  par- 
ticular fact  as  isolated,  and  that  particular  method 
as  unrelated.  The  way  to  know  the  world  is 
to  begin  by  regarding  it  as  an  organized  unit, 
and  to  arrange  every  fact  and  process  in  it 
intelligently  about  that  primary  luminous  and 
germinal  conception.  If  we  mistake  not,  it  is 
this  discovery  that  has  been  the  secret  of  the 
noblest  achievements  of  natural  science  and  of 
the  truest  methods  of  education  in  schools  of 
every  grade. 

This  encyclopedic  impulse  of  the  mind  is  in 
perfect  harmony  with  the  comprehensive  unity  of 
truth  for  which  we  have  been  arguing.  By  a  law 
of  our  thinking,  we  directly  strive  to  see  every 


THE  UNITY  OF  TRUTH  25 

truth  we  know  in  its  relations  with  every  other 
truth.  We  assume  that  there  are  thinkable  and 
intelligible  relations  between  everything  we  know 
and  everything  we  do  not  know.  We  postulate 
an  ideal  unity  which  is  comprehensive  and  com- 
plete. Professor  Ormund  says  as  much  when,  in 
striking  agreement  with  Professor  Royce,  he 
says,  "  In  order  that  there  may  be  any  science  the 
world  must  be  conceived  as  completing  itself  in 
an  ideal  unity." 1  We  catch  glimpses  of  this 
ideal  unity,  as  it  lies  untarnished  and  eternal  in 
the  creative  thought,  when  we  see  it  bodied  forth 
in  the  world  about  us — not  excluding  ourselves 
also  as  a  part  of  its  larger  self.  Then  we  are 
seized  with  an  inspiring  zeal  to  decipher  the 
thought  which  is  already  written  there,  and  to  dis- 
cover to  ourselves  a  kindred  intelligence  and  an 
outworking  purpose  where  before  we  had  been 
only  embarrassed  by  the  opaque  and  the  mean- 
ingless. 

That  this  endeavor,  legitimate  and  praiseworthy, 
has  never  succeeded  to  the  full,  is  a  truism  too 
obvious  to  require  mention.  Why  it  has  failed ; 
why,  with  present  conditions,  it  must  continue  to 
fail;  why  human  thought  should  not  tally,  part 
for  part,  with  God's  truth  ;  why,  to  the  human 
1  Foundations  of  Knowledge,  p.  228. 


26  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

intellect  with  limited  ken  at  its  best  and  with 
obscured  vision  amid  the  mists  of  a  strangely  dis- 
ordered and  distorted  world,  the  loftiest  achieve- 
ments and  largest  conquests  are  ever  bound  to 
come  far  short  of  a  full  and  adequate  interpreta- 
tion of  the  vast,  divine,  world-thought-and-plan — 
these  are  some  of  the  questions  which  may  well 
engage  our  attention  in  the  hours  that  are  to 
follow. 

Perhaps  we  cannot  conclude  this  first  hour 
better  than  by  barely  alluding  to  some  of  the 
more  or  less  explicit  denials  of  the  principle 
which  we  have  insisted  upon  as  necessary  and 
fundamental.  You  are,  of  course,  familiar  with 
the  famous  "antinomies"  of  Immanuel  Kant,  as 
developed  in  his  Critique  of  the  Pure  Reason. 
That  justly  renowned  criticism  of  the  powers  of 
the  human  mind  is  commonly  regarded  as  a  mag- 
nificent demonstration  of  the  impotence  of  our 
faculties  at  their  best.  It  was  a  destructive  work 
which,  even  as  a  curious  product  of  dialectical 
genius,  is  worthy  of  the  epoch-making  influence 
it  has  exerted.  But  the  lesson  it  taught  was  dis- 
heartening and  almost  funereal.  Indeed,  the 
Konigsberg  sage,  apparently  realizing  that  he  had 
bereft  men  of  their  priceless  heritage,  would  fain 
make  good  the  loss  to  them  in  his  subsequent  con- 


THE  UNITY  OF  TRUTH  27 

structive  work  on  the  Practical  Reason.  Never- 
theless, he  had  left  a  scar  which  could  never  be 
wholly  healed.  The  "  Categorical  Imperative," 
for  reverent  and  thoughtful  spirits,  has  forever 
lost  its  commanding  note,  if  it  is  to  be  divorced 
from  rational  sanctions.  A  cleavage  between  the 
ethical  and  the  rational,  between  the  right  and  the 
true,  so  long  as  it  is  not  only  unbridged,  but  also 
is  believed  to  be  unbridgeable,  stands  as  an  in- 
surmountable barrier  to  further  progress  and  is  a 
menace  to  intellectual  confidence,  to  moral  integ- 
rity, and  to  a  healthy  religious  faith.  I  am  not 
now  discussing  the  spirit  or  the  purpose  of  Kant, 
nor  affecting  to  state  the  full  meaning  of  the 
Critical  Philosophy ;  I  am  not  forgetting  that  the 
task  he  set  for  himself  was  the  investigation  of 
man's  powers  and  not  of  God's  truth ;  I  quite 
understand  that  of  which  Professor  Ormund 
reminds  us,1  namely,  that  Kant  admitted  possible 
transcending  spheres  where  human  categories  fail 
and  where  these  haunting  "  antinomies  "  may  dis- 
appear ;  nor  am  I  by  any  sort  of  means  denying 
that  his  own  meaning  was  far  different  from,  and 
far  better  than,  that  which  has  been  so  noisily  ex- 
ploited by  the  aggressive  propagandism  of  the 
"  Extreme  Left  "  among  his  disciples  ;  I  am  only 
1  See  Foundations  of  Knowledge,  p.  386. 


28  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

now  referring  to  the  historical  effect  which  this 
philosophy  has  left  upon  the  religious  world,  and 
I  venture  to  affirm  that,  with  all  the  vigor  and 
impulse  that  was  given  to  the  religious  life  by 
his  later  Critique,  the  Christian  world  of  the  last 
century  was  incomparably  more  the  loser  through 
his  famous  doctrine  of  the  Antinomies,  as  that 
doctrine  has  been  interpreted  and  widely  accepted. 
Herein,  for  modern  thought,  was  the  genesis  of 
agnosticism,  and  its  genealogy  is  too  well  known 
to  call  for  the  tracing.  Sir  William  Hamilton 
seized  the  negative  horn  of  the  Critical  Philosophy 
and,  pressing  his  distinction  between  real  knowl- 
edge and  regulative  knowledge  on  the  basis  of 
his  doctrine  of  the  relativity  of  all  knowledge, 
accordingly,  made  faith  a  contradiction  of  reason. 
Mansel,  of  the  Church  of  England,  in  his  once 
famous  but  now  half- forgotten  Bampton  Lectures 
for  1858,1  developed  this  thought  in  brilliant  and 
plausible  dialectic,  endeavoring,  in  the  interest  of 
religious  faith,  to  show  how  reason  invariably 
leads  to  inevitable  contradictions  and  inextricable 
entanglements.  Of  course,  the  end  was  not  yet. 
It  wanted  only  the  widely  empirical  and  yet  the 
constructively  generalizing  genius  of  Herbert 
Spencer  to  seize   upon  this  same  negative  view, 

1  The  Limits  of  Religious  Thought. 


THE  UNITY  OF  TRUTH  29 

born  of  Kant,  nursed  by  Hamilton,  and  christened 
by  Mansel,  and,  organizing  it  into  a  new  philoso- 
phy— if  philosophy  it  can  be  called — with  the  all- 
containing  and  all-explaining  law  of  Evolution  as 
its  principle  and  nucleus,  to  dignify  and  popularize 
the  old  dogma  of  the  constitutional  impotence  of 
the  human  faculties  into  the  unmitigated  agnosti- 
cism of  to-day.  Lower  than  this  it  could  not  fall ; 
further  than  this  it  could  not  go.  Here  it  struck 
the  zero  point  in  philosophy.  It  is  the  final 
apotheosis  of  the  Kantian  antinomy.  To  be  sure, 
it  can  be  neither  proved  nor  disproved.  If  the 
mind  is  so  impotent,  then  it  is  too  impotent  to 
prove  its  own  impotence.  If  a  man  say  to  you, 
"  I  cannot  tell  the  truth,"  how  can  you  know 
whether  to  believe  him  or  not  ?  If  the  mind  demon- 
strates its  inability,  it  has  shown  nothing  but  its 
inability  to  demonstrate.  As  Dr.  Martincau  has 
somewhere  said,  "Agnosticism  is  a  dumb  man 
calling  out  to  you  that  he  has  no  voice."  How- 
ever, Mr.  Spencer's  philosophy  has  been  for  the 
last  forty  years  a  force  with  which  evangelical 
thought  has  had  to  reckon.  And  the  spirit  of  the 
Konigsberger  has  not  cropped  out  only  in  the 
Synthetic  and  the  Cosmic  Philosophy.  In  theo- 
logical circles,  Ritschlianism  would  fain  divorce 
philosophy   from    faith,    the    religious    from    the 


30  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

rational  j1  and  we  need  not  pause  to  mention  how 
plausible  and  how  prevalent  are  its  well-dressed 
tenets.  Mr.  Benjamin  Kidd,  in  one  of  the  most 
widely  read  and  variously  discussed  books  of  the 
last  decade,2  has  unblushingly  affirmed  that  "  a 
rational  religion  is  a  scientific  impossibility,"  al- 
lowing it  only  "  ultra-rational  sanctions  "  at  the 
best ;  and  Dr.  Iverach  is  abundantly  warranted  in 
declaring  that  sanctions  which  are  ultra-rational 
are  nothing  else  than  "  irrational  " ; 3  and,  we  may 
add,  the  irrational  is  no  better  than  the  downright 
contra-rational.  The  ghost  of  Kant's  first  Critique 
haunted  Christian  thought  during  that  entire  nine- 
teenth century  from  which  we  have  just  emerged; 
and  if  twentieth  century  Christianity  is  to  be  stal- 
wart and  strong,  if  it  is  to  have  and  to  hold  a  firm 
grasp  upon  the  intelligence  and  the  energies  of 
the  new  age  upon  which  we  are  entering,  it  can 

1 1  shall  have  more  to  say  of  this  later  on.  The  reader  may 
refer  to  the  English  translation  of  Ritschl's  great  work,  The 
Christian  Doctrine  of  Justification  and  Reconciliation,  pp.  17, 
20,  194,  539  et  a/.  See,  also,  Stahlin's  Kant,  Lotze,  and  Kitschl, 
pp.  183,  185,257  ;  Orr's  The  Ritschlian  Theology  and  the  Evan- 
gelical Faith,  pp.  67,  70,  263  ;  and  Garvie's  The  Ritschlian 
Theology,  p.  62. 

*  Social  Evolution,  Macmillan,  first  cd.,  pp.  101,  103. 

3  Theism  in  the  Light  of  Present  Science  and  Philosophy, 
p.  164. 


THE  UNITY  OF  TRUTH 


3i 


never  be  by  playing  a  sharp  trick  on  the  faculties 
of  our  being  in  order  that  we  may  believe  in  the 
God  that  made  us,  or  by  surrendering  or  com- 
promising the  divinely  given  rationality  with  which 
we  are  endowed,  in  order  to  place  a  blind  faith  in 
that  which  persists  in  concealing  its  face  from  our 
gaze. 

Our  contention  is  that  if  the  reason  in  man  can 
do  no  better  than  to  lead  up  to  such  a  cul-de-sac 
as  the  antinomies  of  Kant,  then  the  race  is 
doomed  to  hopeless  and  helpless  skepticism.  We 
are  not  now  speaking  at  all  of  the  need  or  of  the 
function  of  a  revelation  from  God,  for  the  reason 
that  if  there  is  ever  to  be  such  a  revelation,  either 
in  a  form  which  men  call  natural  or  which  they 
call  supernatural,  it  must  needs  address  itself  to 
whatever  of  reason  there  is  in  man ;  and,  accord- 
ingly, it  must  subject  its  content  to  the  cognizing 
and  digesting  faculties  which  man  may  happen  to 
possess.  Such  a  revelation,  to  be  a  revelation  at 
all,  must  be  received  and  judged;  but  of  what  avail 
is  this,  if  the  powers  by  which  we  receive  it  and 
judge  it  are  utterly  and  intrinsically  untrust- 
worthy ?  It  were  the  work  of  an  all-foolish  being 
and  not  of  an  all-wise  God  to  attempt  to  com- 
municate truth  to  men  if  the  best  that  they  can 
do  with  it  is  to  construe  it  into  contradictions  and 


32  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

to  tie  it  up  into  such  double-hard-knots  as  the 
antinomies  of  Immanuel  Kant.  Dean  Mansel's 
lectures  made  impossible  the  intelligent  faith  for 
which  they  were  designed  to  prepare  the  way. 
In  slaying  rationalism,  he  slaughtered  reason. 
He  "  threw  out  the  child  with  the  bath ";  he 
"burned  the  barn  to  get  rid  of  the  mice." 

No,  we  are  not  forgetting  that  we  are  saved  by 
faith,  and  that  it  is  the  gift  of  God.  We  are  not 
overlooking  the  great  truth  that  man's  rational 
powers  are  finite  at  their  ideal  best,  and  that  they 
are  blighted  and  handicapped  by  sin  in  their 
actual  state.  Nevertheless,  we  are  to  rescue  and 
employ  what  little  reason  there  is  in  man  if  we 
are  to  have  a  kind  of  faith  which  is  at  all  worth 
the  having.  Right  reason  must  be  perfectly  con- 
sistent with  true  faith.  If  faith  is  irrational,  as 
Mr.  Kidd  insists,  then  men  must  be  de-rational- 
ized in  order  to  be  saved.  In  order  to  be  saints, 
they  must  become  fools.  The  very  statement  of 
this  position  is  enough  to  show  the  irrationalness 
of  it,  but  we  must  presuppose  the  validity  of  our 
own  reason  before  we  can  pronounce  this  or  any- 
thing else  either  rational  or  irrational. 

There  is  no  overestimating  the  damage  done 
to  intelligent  Christian  faith  by  this  false  phil- 
osophical teaching.     To  throw  away    reason  for 


THE  UNITY  OF  TRUTH  33 

the  sake  of  faith  is  to  pay  too  high  a  price  for  the 
spurious  faith  which  we  get  in  the  barter.  If  of 
two  evils  we  must  choose  the  less,  we  should 
prefer  Hegel  to  Huxley:  we  should  side  with 
rationalism,  with  its  soiled  robes  and  tattered 
dignity,  rather  than  with  agnosticism,  proudly 
vaunting  itself  upon  its  own  humility,  and,  owl- 
like, stubbornly  shutting  out  the  light  in  the  very 
face  of  the  undimmed  sun. 

Here  again  we  come  back  to  the  unity  of  the 
truth.  We  may  not  see  it,  but  we  are  ever  assum- 
ing it  still.  There  are  intervening  spaces,  but,  like 
the  oceans  between  the  continents,  they  do  not 
separate;  they  connect.  The  boundary  lines 
between  the  departments  of  human  knowledge 
are  arbitrary  and  artificial.  It  is  a  Tropic  of 
Cancer  that  divides  astronomy  from  geography, 
or  anatomy  from  psychology.  We  pass  from 
the  one  to  the  other  as  easily  and  unconsciously 
as  we  pass  from  New  Jersey  into  Pennsylvania. 
Every  science  fits  in  with  every  other  science  to 
make  the  organic,  symmetrical,  complete  body 
of  scientific  truth.  Nor  is  so-called  scientific 
truth  all  of  truth.  The  scientist  must  turn 
metaphysician  at  times,  then  mystic,  then  poet, 
then  theologian,  then  saint ;  but,  whatever  apron 
he  may  have  on  at  his  work,  it  is  really  the  plain 
3 


34  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

man  himself  that  knows  the  truth  which  he  finds ; 
and,  in  knowing  it,  he,  ipso  facto,  coordinates  and 
correlates  and  classifies  so  much  as  comes  within 
his  purview,  always  with  the  often  unconscious 
purpose  to  make  his  mental  map  reproduce  the 
field  of  truth  as  it  lies  in  limitless  landscapes  and 
ever-enlarging  prospects  before  his  eye.  Ordo  ct 
connexio  idcarum  idem  est  ac  ordo  ct  conncxio  rcrwn. 
There  are  connecting  lines  running  between 
remotest  points.  They  may  thread  the  surface 
here,  while  there,  like  our  Humboldt  River  of  the 
West,  they  may  stretch  along  in  hidden,  subter- 
ranean courses ;  they  may  run,  like  the  projected 
railway  of  the  Czar  of  the  Russias,  in  shortest 
distance  by  curveless  lines,  or  they  may  seem  to 
steer  around  the  shore-lines  of  a  continent ;  they 
may  be  faint  to  the  eye  and  fugitive  to  the  seeker; 
but  of  one  thing  we  are  sure,  seen  or  unseen, 
they  exist,  they  are  always  there. 

There  can  be  no  impassable  barbed-wire  fence 
inclosing  any  field  of  human  thought.  Let 
every  thinker,  not  least  of  all  the  theologian  him- 
self, take  to  himself  the  text,  "  No  man  liveth  to 
himself  and  no  man  dieth  to  himself."  What  is 
true  at  Girard  College  cannot  be  false  at  Prince- 
ton ;  what  is  true  in  the  laboratory  of  the  univer- 
sity cannot  be  false  in  the  lecture  room  of  theol- 


THE  UNITY  OF  TRUTH 


35 


ogy.  Any  modus  vivendi  which  denies  this  prin- 
ciple is  a  delusion  and  a  snare.  Human  knowl- 
edge, like  a  dwelling  house  in  Japan,  has  movable 
partitions  between  the  compartments,  and,  as  the 
light  of  day  comes  on,  the  partitions  are  taken  out 
and  the  many  become  one. 

Nor  are  we  to  forget  that  the  scientist,  the  sage, 
and  the  saint,  are  but  parts  of  the  whole  whose 
contents  they  are  exploring  and  whose  meaning 
they  would  read.  The  noblest  study  of  man  is 
Man.  Know  thyself;  to  man  alone,  the  sole  self- 
conscious  spirit,  is  this  loftiest  task  assigned. 
The  whole  complex  unit  stands  as  the  embodi- 
ment and  expression  of  a  whole  complex  idea. 
Your  mind  and  mine,  as  well  as  your  body  and 
mine,  are  parts  of  this  great  whole.  The  rela- 
tions between  them,  the  origins  and  ends,  the  ten- 
dencies and  triumphs,  the  struggles  and  strifes, 
the  bufferings  and  battles,  the  aims  and  effects, 
the  births  and  deaths,  all  enter  into  this  vast  and 
varied  unity  of  the  whole.  There  are  depths  too 
deep  for  our  fathoming;  there  are  heights  too  lofty 
for  our  scaling ;  there  are  breaks  and  gaps,  there 
are  lacuna  and  casurce,  there  are  enigmas  and 
mysteries ;  but  the  mind  knows  and  forever 
assumes  that  the  whole  is  a  self-consistent,  self- 
harmonious   One.     Of  that   one  whole  we   may 


36  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

never  become  the  complete  and  easy  master,  but 
the  secret  of  our  aspiring  and  the  measure  of  our 
achieving  will  ever  be  in  the  line  of  the  pursuit 
of  that  unattained,  unattainable  Ideal. 


LECTURE  II 

MODES   OF  APPROACHING 
THE   COSMOS 


LECTURE   II 

MODES   OF  APPROACHING   THE   COSMOS 

The  assumed  unity  of  truth,  which  was  our 
theme  in  the  last  lecture,  involves  in  some  way  an 
assumed  unity  of  things.  Every  existing  object 
belongs  to  the  grand  system  of  which  it  is  a  part. 
The  knowledge  of  any  one  object  in  the  world  is 
possible  because  it  has  a  knowable  place  in  a 
knowable  world ;  it  enters  into  relation  not  only 
with  the  knower;  not  only  with  everything  the 
knower  knows ;  but  also  with  everything  the 
knower  does  not  know.  Unity  means  harmony, 
self-consistency,  a  rational  scheme.  The  parts  of 
the  system  are  not  related  to  each  other  as  the 
grains  of  sand  on  the  beach  are  related  to  each 
other,  though  even  there  there  is  a  relation  which 
is  neither  fortuitous  nor  unregulated.  The  whole 
of  nature  is  not  an  aggregation,  but  an  organ- 
ism. It  is  diversity  in  harmony,  variety  in  unity. 
Whatever  metaphysical  implications  are  involved 
in  this  conception,  the  very  possibility  of  cosmicai 
knowledge  is  contingent  upon  allowing  these  im- 
plications. 

One  of  the   severest   indictments   against  this 

39 


4o  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

idea  of  the  self-consistency  of  things,  appear- 
ing in  recent  years,  is  found  in  Bradley's  Appear- 
ance and  Reality,  a  book  which  some  philosoph- 
ical critics  have  pronounced  the  nearest  approach 
to  an  epoch-making  book  in  its  time.1  The 
modest  judgment  of  a  layman  in  philosophy  is 
that  the  acumen  displayed  by  the  author  is  really 
brilliant,  and  his  argument  is  unquestionably  both 
keen  and  strong,  yet  the  conclusions  to  which  he 
brings  the  reader  are  thoroughly  unsatisfactory 
and  confusing.  It  is  the  most  striking  recent 
book  in  the  English  language,  aiming,  upon  purely 
abstract  grounds,  to  break  down  the  concrete  self- 
consistency  of  the  cosmos  ;  and  the  effect  which  it 
produces  upon  the  mind  is  all  the  more  startling 
because  of  the  boldness  and  vigor  with  which  it 
argues  against  those  very  substrata  of  thought 
which  are  too  deep  and  fundamental  to  be  either 
undermined  or  strengthened  by  argument.  When 
he  attempts  to  reconcile  the  One  and  the  Many, 
he  finds  that  the  world  must  "  go  to  pieces  ";  his 
abstract  logic  lands  him  in  a  contradiction; 
he  pronounces  the  actual  world  "  self-contra- 
dictory," "  inconsistent,"  "  unintelligent,"  "  un- 
true."    Accordingly,  in  this  dialectical  deadlock, 

1  By  F.  H.  Bradley,  LL.D.,  Glasgow,  Fellow  of  Merton  Col- 
lege, Oxford ;  in  "  The  Library  of  Philosophy  ' '  Series. 


MODES  OF  APPROACHING  THE  COSMOS     41 

he  concludes,  agreeing  substantially  with  Mansel 
before  him,  "  Our  intellect,  then,  has  been  con- 
demned to  confusion  and  bankruptcy,  and  the 
reality  has  been  left  outside  uncomprehended.  .  . 
It  is  left  naked  and  without  a  character,  and  we 
are  covered  with  confusion." 1 

And  yet,  somehow  the  old  world  manages 
to  hang  together,  notwithstanding  Mr.  Bradley. 
It  has  survived  his  adverse  verdict;  it  has 
withstood  many  such,  and  we  have  faith  to 
believe  it  can  stand  many  more.  He  is  all  right 
in  insisting  that  "  reality  must  be  a  single  whole," 
and  we  believe  that  that  is  precisely  what  the 
actual  world  is.  We  believe  this,  too,  not  only 
because  the  metaphysician  says  it  must  be  so,  but 
also  because  the  empiricist  says  it  is  so.  This 
unity  of  the  whole  is  not  a  mysterious  and  in- 
scrutable Absolute  in  which  we  are  to  merge 
or,  to  use  Mr.  Bradley's  frequent  expression,  to 
"transmute,"  the  Many  in  order  that  we  may 
preserve  the  One.  We  believe  in  the  Many,  and 
we  believe  in  the  One,  and  we  are  not  exactly 
ready  to  abandon  our  faith  in  either  because  Mr. 
Bradley  warns  us  that  unless  we  do  the  whole 
will  "  go  to  pieces."  The  world  is  not  so  fragile 
as  Mr.  Bradley  thinks ;  but,  rather,  in  spite  of 
1  P.  34;  see  also  p.  120. 


42  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

some  ugly  and  persistent  difficulties  which  Mr. 
Bradley  thrusts  in  our  way,  we  agree  with  the 
words  of  a  sane,  though  not  unsympathetic  critic : 
"  Now,  I  maintain  that  unity  in  multiplicity, 
identity  in  diversity,  is  just  the  ultimate  nature 
of  universal  experience.  Such  a  unity  or  identity 
is  lived  or  experienced  in  every  instance  of  self- 
conscious  existence ;  and  it  cannot  be  other  tha?i  a 
misleading  use  of  language  to  speak  of  oar  most 
intimate  experience,  the  ultimate  bedrock  of  fact, 
as  unintelligible  or  contradictory '." l 

But  let  us  go  on,  leaving  it  to  science  to  safe- 
guard its  own  presuppositions.  And  yet,  there  is 
an  error  here  which  is  so  prevalent  that  it  has 
imbedded  itself  in  common  language,  and,  in 
turn,  our  speech  reacts  to  confirm  the  error.  We 
refer  to  the  use  of  the  term  Science.  Its  common 
use  limits  it  to  physical  phenomena.  We  call  a 
man  a  scientist2  who  devotes  himself  to  the  in- 
vestigation of  natural  forces  and  methods  and 
results.  So  common  has  become  this  way  of 
speaking  that  we  fall  in  with  it  even  when  we  are 

1  Professor  Andrew  Seth's  Man's  Place  in  the  Cosmos,  p.  163. 
The  words  occur  in  the  course  of  a  masterly  criticism  of  Mr. 
Bradley's  book,  under  the  title,  "A  New  Theory  of  the  Abso- 
lute."    Italics  are  ours. 

1  The  reader  may  recall  the  late  Professor  Huxley's  abhorrence 
of  the  temi  "scientist." 


MODES  OF  APPROACHING  THE  COSMOS     43 

pointing  out  the  fallacy  in  it.  It  may  not  be  a 
very  serious  matter,  provided  we  bear  in  mind 
that  it  is  not  strictly  accurate,  and  that  we  are  not 
to  be  held  responsible  for  implications  which  we 
expressly  disown. 

There  are  at  least  three  ways  of  accounting 
for  this  materialistic  monopolization  of  the  term 
Science. 

The  first  is  the  obvious  fact  that  the  material 
alone  yields  to  sensible  tests.  In  our  conscious 
development,  the  physical  claims  our  attention  in 
advance  of  the  metaphysical — zd  fierce  zd  epoaexd ; 
and  there  is  in  scientific  pursuits  a  strong  ten- 
dency to  adhere  to  this  order.  It  may  claim  to 
be  natural,  and  science  is  generally  content  with 
whatever  can  argue  for  itself  the  sanctions  of  the 
natural  order. 

Secondly,  it  is  insisted  that  only  the  physical 
belongs  to  the  realm  of  nature,  and  that,  of 
course,  science  becomes  unscientific  whenever  it 
transcends  that  realm.  Here,  to  be  sure,  is  a 
challengeable  assumption,  but  it  is  a  plausible 
one.  Definitions  must  be  decided  upon  before 
we  can  allow  it  to  pass.  Mr.  J.  S.  Mill's 
definitions  of  nature,  namely,  "  Nature,  in  the 
abstract,  is  the  aggregate  of  the  powers  and 
properties   of  all  things,"  and  "  Not  everything 


44  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

which  happens,  but  only  what  takes  place 
without  the  voluntary  and  intentional  agency  of 
man," l  may  be  cited  in  support  of  the  conten- 
tion ;  and  yet  Mr.  Mill  elsewhere  freely  grants 
that  there  is  an  intellectual  element  in  this  closed 
circuit :  "  For  the  word  suggests,  not  so  much 
the  multitudinous  detail  of  the  phenomena,  as  the 
conception  which  might  be  formed  of  the  manner 
of  existence  as  a  mental  whole,  by  a  mind  pos- 
sessing a  complete  knowledge  of  them  ;  to  which 
conception  it  is  the  aim  of  science  to  raise  itself."2 
Surely  such  a  conception  as  this,  of  the  "  aim  " 
of  science,  involving  as  it  does  some  sort  of 
residence  of  that  conception  in  nature  itself,  lifts 
the  level  of  science  far  above  the  range  of  the 
merely  physical  alone. 

And  thirdly,  the  evolutionary  philosophy  lends 
itself  readily  to  this  mode  of  thought.  It  limits 
science  to  the  natural  because,  in  its  scheme,  only 
the  natural  is.  The  Spencerian  monistic  school 
recognizes  no  object  of  knowledge  outside  of  the 
great  cosmical  programme.  Science  is  simply 
the  systematic  study  of  this  programme  in  all  its 
phases  and  parts.  The  atom,  the  star  dust,  the 
protoplasm,  the  mind,  society,  religion,  the  idea 
of  God,  the  whole  myriad-sided  world — this  is 
1  Three  Essays  on  Religion,  pp.  5,  8.  2  Ibid.,  p.  6. 


MODES  OF  APPROACHING  THE  COSMOS     45 

what  we  can  know,  and  this  is  the  subject-matter 
of  science. 

This  conception  of  science,  however,  is  inade- 
quate and  misleading.  Science  means  method, 
not  material;  it  may  have  for  its  subject  the 
spiritual  as  well  as  the  physical.  There  may  be 
a  scientific  doctrine  of  God  as  well  as  a  scientific 
study  of  man ;  a  theology  as  well  as  an  anthro- 
pology. There  may  be  a  scientific  study  of  Isaiah 
as  well  as  of  Shakespeare.  We  challenge  the  right 
of  the  man  who  studies  rocks  or  stars  or  snakes 
or  trees  or  bones  to  usurp  the  honors  of  science. 
There  may  be  a  scientific  study  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
as  well  as  of  the  human  arm,  of  the  spiritual  life 
as  Jwell  as  of  insect  life,  of  grace  as  well  as  of 
nature.  Science  means  an  attitude  of  mind,  a 
method  of  procedure,  a  systematizing  of  truth ; 
and  it  may  be  of  the  unseen  not  less  than  of  the 
seen,  of  the  superhuman  not  less  than  of  the  sub- 
human. Whence  it  appears  how  absurd  it  is  to 
talk  about  a  conflict  between  science  and  the- 
ology ;  theology  is  science,  or  it  is  false  theology. 
Conceivably,  there  may  be  a  disagreement  be- 
tween geological  or  biological  science  on  the  one 
side  and  theological  science  on  the  other;  only 
conceivably,  however,  for  upon  our  postulate  of 
the   unity  of  truth,  if  the  various    sciences    are 


46  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

logical  in  form  and  true  in  substance,  there  can 
be  in  fact  no  conflict  between  them. 

The  error  which  we  wish  to  point  out  is  that 
natural  science  or,  better  yet,  cosmical  science, 
is  entitled  to  a  monopoly  of  the  term  Science ; 
and,  in  yielding  to  the  prevalent  usage  of  speech, 
we  waive  no  rights  to  the  word  so  long  as  we 
pursue  any  line  of  thought,  in  a  scientific  spirit 
and  according  to  scientific  methods. 

There  are  two  methods  of  approach  in  coming 
to  know  the  world :  the  a  priori  and  the  a  pos- 
teriori, the  deductive  and  the  inductive.  The  first 
method  is  that  of  conceiving  for  ourselves  what 
the  world  is  and  then  going  out  to  make  the 
world  conform  to  our  ready-made  conception.  It 
evolves  its  cosmos  out  of  the  inner  consciousness. 
If  the  world  is  instinct  with  reason,  and  if  we  are 
rational  beings,  then  why  may  we  not  know  the 
world  by  reading  off  the  reason  that  is  in  us  ? 
We  can  judge  the  coin  by  knowing  the  stamp; 
why  not  infer  the  world-product  by  our  knowl- 
edge of  its  origin  ? 

This  may  seem  strange  to  the  predominant  in- 
ductivism  of  to-day,  and  yet  it  has  played  a  large 
part  in  the  history  of  men's  thinking.1     Nor  has 

1  "In  that  stage  of  physical  and  mathematical  knowledge, 
Plato  has  fallen  into  the  error  of  supposing  that  he  can  construct 


MODES  OF  APPROACHING  THE  COSMOS     47 

it  by  any  means  disappeared  yet ;  it  never  will 
disappear.  Back  of  all  our  thinking  about  the 
world,  lies  the  sleeping  assumption  that  a  certain 
relation  exists  between  God  and  that  world. 
Whatever  that  relation  may  be,  we  instinctively 
think  of  it  as  God's  world,  and,  in  some  sense,  we 
implicate  the  Divine  Honor  in  the  character  and 
ordering  of  His  world.  Hegel  disclaimed  any 
"  intention  to  assume  the  character  of  a  God,  and 
to  create  History,"  l  and  yet,  notwithstanding  his 
disclaimer,  he  would  not  have  been  the  first  to  do 
that  very  thing.     To  assume  the  character  of  a 

the  heavens  a  priori  by  mathematical  problems,  and  determine 
the  principles  of  harmony  irrespective  of  the  adaptation  of 
sounds  to  the  human  ear.  The  illusion  was  a  natural  one  in 
that  age  and  country.  The  simplicity  and  certainty  of  astronomy 
and  harmonics  seemed  to  contrast  with  the  variation  and  com- 
plexity of  the  world  of  sense ;  hence  the  circumstance  that  there 
was  some  elementary  basis  of  fact,  some  measurement  of  distance 
or  time  or  vibrations  on  which  they  must  ultimately  rest,  was 
overlooked  by  him.  The  modern  predecessors  of  Newton  fell 
into  errors  equally  great ;  and  Plato  can  hardly  be  said  to  have 
been  very  far  wrong,  or  may  even  claim  a  sort  of  prophetic  in- 
sight into  the  subject,  when  we  consider  that  the  greater  part  of 
astronomy  at  the  present  day  consists  of  abstract  dynamics,  by 
the  help  of  which  most  astronomical  discoveries  have  been 
made."  Professor  Jowett's  Introduction  to  Plato's  Republic; 
Jowett's  Plato,  vol.  hi.,  pp.  ex.,  cxi. 

1  Lectures  on  the  Philosophy  of  History,  Bohn's  Library  Ed., 
p.  xix. 


48  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

God  is  to  predetermine  history,  to  foreordain  a 
world.  Only  atheism  can  escape  this  creative 
task,  and  atheism  is  not  only  "  bad  metaphysics," 
as  Mr.  Fiske  has  said,  but  also  bad  science. 
Dualism  has  tried  to  escape  it,  but,  as  we  shall 
see  by  and  by,  dualism  is  an  impossible  theism  if 
it  be  any  better  than  downright  atheism ;  for  a 
theism  that  gives  to  God  a  divided  sovereignty  or 
a  limited  sway,  is  certainly  a  misnomer.  From 
pantheism  to  deism,  cosmology  is  a  chapter  in 
theology;  our  theodicy  waits  upon  our  concep- 
tions of  cosmical  science.  This  being  so,  men 
will  continue,  in  their  partial  knowledge  of  the 
cosmos,  to  infer  what  kind  of  a  world  this  is,  not 
more  from  their  actual  perceptions  of  the  world 
itself  than  from  their  conceptions  of  the  God  who 
made  it  and  rules  it. 

But  it  must  be  conceded  that  this  science  of  the 
"arm-chair,"  as  Professor  Royce  might  call  it, 
this  amateur  world-spinning,  is  a  very  precarious 
business.  Bishop  Butler  might  well  sound  the 
warning,  "  Let  us,  then,  instead  of  that  idle  and 
not  very  innocent  employment  of  forming  imag- 
inary models  of  a  world  and  schemes  of  governing 
it,  turn  our  thoughts  to  what  we  experience  to  be 
the  conduct  of  nature."1  But  men  are  slow  to 
1  Analogy,  p.  73;  Lippincott,  1S73. 


MODES  OF  APPROACHING  THE  COSMOS     49 

heed  the  good  bishop's  admonition.  It  is  easier 
to  fabricate  a  cosmos  of  our  own  than  to  submit 
to  the  laborious  and  painstaking  processes  by 
which  alone  we  can  become  acquainted  with  the 
commonplace  and  complex  world  which  is  already 
here.  The  smooth  cosmogony  of  the  arm-chair 
is  unembarrassed  by  troublesome  frictions  and 
cog-slips,  and  if  Plato  is  right  in  saying l  that  in 
the  nature  of  things  the  actual  must  fall  short  of 
the  truth,  then  here  we  may  regale  ourselves  with 
worlds  untarnished  by  the  rude  touch  of  fact,  un- 
soiled  by  the  dusty  processes  of  materialization. 
We  are  masters  of  the  situation,  and  we  can  pre- 
destinate that  Satans  and  sin  and  storm  and 
struggle  and  sorrow  shall  never  invade  the  fair 
fields  of  the  world  which  we  create.  Poets  are 
creators  and  history  is  a  poem,2  and  if  Dante  had 
his  Inferno  and  Milton  his  Paradise,  so  poetry  has 
always  been  a  busy  and  prolific  world-factory. 

1  "  Must  not  the  actual,  whatever  a  man  may  think,  always,  in 
the  nature  of  things,  fall  short  of  the  truth?  "    Republic,  v.,  473. 

2  "  One  might  be  in  doubt  as  to  the  class  of  artistic  productions 
among  which  this  poem  should  be  reckoned ;  to  some  it  has 
seemed  to  have  the  uniform  flow  of  an  epic,  to  others  to  be  as 
full  of  catastrophes  as  a  tragedy  ;  again,  it  has  not  unfrequently 
been  regarded  as  a  comedy  by  mocking  philosophers  in  sardonic 
moods  ;  and  each  of  these  views  has  seemed,  to  those  who  held 
it,  to  have  something  in  it."     Lotze's  Microcosmus,  ii.,  168. 

4 


50  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

"Worlds  on  worlds  are  rolling  ever 
From  creation  to  decay, 
Like  the  bubbles  on  a  river, 
Sparkling,  bursting,  borne  away."  * 

But  to  the  philosopher  belongs  the  high  pre- 
rogative of  determining  in  advance  the  world  we 
can  have.  He  deals  with  necessities,  with  ideal- 
ities, with  possibilities,  and  he  insists  that  the  best 
way  to  know  what  kind  of  a  world  we  have  is  to 
find  out  first  what  kind  of  a  world  we  can  have. 
He  tells  us  that  mere  crude  actuality  is  only  an 
incident  in  the  eternal  existence  of  the  ideal.  For 
Plato,  Plato's  ideas  alone  are  real.  Hegel's 
dictum  is  a  proverb,  "  The  real  is  the  rational 
and  the  rational  is  the  real."  It  is  more  phil- 
osophical to  look  within  and  see  what  the 
rational  is,  and  then  infer  the  real,  than  it  is  to 
look  first  without  to  see  what  the  real  is,  and 
then  infer  the  rational.  The  seat  of  reason  is 
the  soul  of  man,  and  if  we  would  know  a  world 
that  is  reason-made  and  reason-ruled,  then  know 
thyself,  O  Man !  If  man  is  the  microcosm,  the 
center,  and  the  universe  his  periphery,  then  surely 
self-knowledge  is  cosmical  knowledge  at  first 
hand.  If  in  him  lies  "  the  key  of  nature,"  if  he  is 
"  the  type  and  theme  of  history,"  if  indeed  he  is 
1  Shelley's  Hellas. 


MODES  OF  APPROACHING  THE  COSMOS     51 

in  any  sense  "  the  creator  "  of  that  history,1  then 
why  should  he  ever  lift  his  eye  from  the  grand 
spectacle  within  himself  to  look  out  upon  the  face 
of  nature  or  up  to  the  stellar  hosts  ?  Accord- 
ingly, speculative  philosophy  has  often  been  im- 
patient of  mere  fact.  Hegel's  diary  does  not  refer 
to  a  single  historical  event.2  Coleridge  was  noth- 
ing if  not  philosopher,  and  yet  that  great  man, 
who  never  knew  his  own  age,  says,  in  his  Table 
Talk  :  "  I  have  read  all  the  famous  histories  .... 
but  I  did  so  for  the  story  itself  as  a  stoiy.  The 
only  thing  interesting  to  me  was  the  principles  to 
be  evolved  from,  and  illustrated  by,  the  facts. 
After  I  had  gotten  the  principles,  I  pretty  gen- 
erally left  the  facts  to  take  care  of  themselves." 3 

This  a  priori  method  of  dealing  with  the  world 
is  legitimate  to  a  degree,  but  perilous  beyond 
that.  The  loudest  calls  of  our  age  are  for  the 
fact.  We  treat  metaphysical  world-builders  as 
harmless  imbeciles ;  let  them  play  on  if  they  en- 
joy the  game.  The  worlds  they  make  are  not 
even  straw  or  paper  worlds ;  they  are  merest  cas- 

^chade's  Philosophy  of  History,  pp.  65,  66. 

2  See  Royce's  The  Spirit  of  Modern  Philosophy,  p.  197. 

3  Coleridge's  Works,  vol.  vi.,  pp.  401,  402.  In  his  Biographia 
Lileraria,  also,  he  says,  "  History,  and  particularly  facts,  lost 
all  interest  in  my  mind."     Vol.  iii.,  p.  152. 


52  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

ties  in  the  air.  They  are  toy  worlds,  playthings 
of  the  creative  fancy,  brilliant  bubbles  bursting 
as  they  are  borne  away. 

However,  philosophy  is  often  content  with 
only  criticising  the  world  it  finds  instead  of 
creating  a  world  of  its  own.  In  this  case  the 
weight  of  responsibility  rests  upon  the  Creator 
and  the  critic  has  a  freer  hand.  Besides,  the 
secret  misgiving  that  we  are  hardly  equal  to 
the  task  of  world-creating,  de  novo,  need  not 
hamper  us  in  the  more  congenial  task  of  world- 
criticising.  And  here  the  genius  of  speculation 
has  held  high  carnival.  It  is  said  that  Alphonso, 
the  pedantic  king  of  Castile,  regretted  that  he  was 
not  present  when  the  world  was  made,  for  he 
believed  that  he  could  have  given  some  timely 
and  much  needed  advice ;  and,  though  they  may 
not  be  so  frank  as  he,  there  be  many  who  have 
followed  in  the  learned  Alphonso's  train.  Com- 
petent world-criticism  has  for  its  first  condition 
that  the  critic  shall  know  what  the  function  and 
purpose  of  a  world  are.  Leibnitz  argued  that  if 
God  was  to  create  a  world  at  all,  it  must  be  a 
finite  and,  therefore,  ipso  facto,  an  imperfect  world; 
accordingly,  the  divine  choice  was  between  no 
world  and  an  imperfect  world.  In  the  interest 
of  theodicy,  he  insisted  that  of  all  conceivable 


MODES  OF  APPROACHING  THE  COSMOS     53 

worlds,  God  made  the  best  world  possible.  On 
the  other  hand,  Schopenhauer  declares,  "  The 
existence  of  the  world  is  itself  the  greatest  evil 
of  all,  and  underlies  all  other  evil,  and  similarly 
the  root-evil  for  each  individual  is  his  having 
come  into  the  world."  l  Hartmann  regards  crea- 
tion itself  as  "  an  inexpiable  crime."  This  blas- 
phemous indictment  of  the  Creator  for  creating  a 
world  at  all,  is  the  lowest  despairing  growl  of  a 
pessimistic  philosophy.  And  so,  ranging  from 
Leibnitz's  optimism  to  Schopenhauer's  pessimism, 
men  have  passed  judgment  upon  the  world-order, 
and,  fixing  every  judgment  and  giving  tone  to  its 
utterance,  is  their  conception  of  the  God  who  has 
set  up  this  world-system  and  keeps  it  going. 
The  rational  apriorist,  guided  by  his  logic, 
creates  his  world  his  way,  because  it  must  be  so ; 
the  ethical  apriorist,  guided  by  his  conscience, 
creates  his  world  his  way,  because  it  ought  to  be 
so ;  the  aesthetic  apriorist,  guided  by  his  taste, 
creates  his  world  his  way,  because  he  feels  that  it 
is  the  only  proper  thing  that  it  should  be  so. 
The  first  conceives  of  God  as  the  creative  Reason; 
the  second,  as  the  creative  Righteousness ;  the 
third  as  the  creative  Beauty.  If  these  three  cre- 
ators were  infinitely  able  to  project  their  ideals 

1  See  Prof.  Orr's  Christian  View  of  God  and  the  World,  p.  204. 


54  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

into  reality,  we  should  then  have  three  worlds 
which,  merging  into  one,  would  embody  for  us 
the  worthy  philosophical  ideal  of  the  True,  the 
Good,  and  the  Beautiful. 

But  sad  to  say,  the  wrinkled  old  world  which 
has  so  long  preempted  the  ground,  seems  to  dis- 
appoint these  fine  ideals.  The  actual  does  not 
tally  with  the  ideal.  I  believe  I  can  think  of  two 
reasons  why  there  should  be  this  disappointment. 

The  first  is  that,  although  God  is  infinitely 
rational,  and  therefore  His  world  is  in  some  sort 
a  reflex  of  His  reason,  yet  He  was  infinitely  free 
in  its  origination  and  in  the  ordering  of  its  plan. 
It  is  a  fallacy  to  argue  that  because  a  man  is 
wise,  therefore,  when  a  choice  is  presented  to  him 
between  two  courses,  the  one  wise  and  the  other 
foolish,  his  decision  (for  the  wise,  of  course),  being 
impelled  by  his  wisdom,  can  be  reduced  to  a 
metaphysical  necessity.  That  were  to  make 
freedom  no  longer  free  when  its  possessor  is 
become  wise.  There  is  a  rationalism  which  is  a 
polite  name  for  fatalism.  Because,  if  He  made  a 
world  at  all,  God  could  make  no  other  than  a 
rational  world;  then  the  world  which  He  did 
make,  because  it  is  a  rational  world,  is  the  only 
world  He  could  have  made.  Jevons  says,  "  Out 
of  the  infinitely  infinite  choices  which  were  open 


MODES  OF  APPROACHING  THE  COSMOS     55 

to  the  Creator,  that  one  choice  must  have  been 
made  [sic]  which  has  yielded  the  universe  as  it 
now  exists." x  What  shall  we  say  of  a  choice 
which  "  must  have  been  made  "  ?  That  were  a 
wisdom  which  would  rob  its  Almighty  Possessor 
of  his  freedom.  Of  a  score  of  godly,  wise  preach- 
ers, one  preaches  a  sermon  upon  a  certain  theme. 
Because  the  other  nineteen  are  equally  wise  and 
godly,  are  we  to  say  that  they  can  sit  in  their 
studies  and  read  off  from  their  own  minds  the  very 
same  sermon  which  their  good  brother  has  actu- 
ally preached  ?  Is  it  not  more  reasonable  to  sup- 
pose that  if  all  the  score  should  preach  upon  that 
same  theme,  they  would  be  vastly  different  ser- 
mons, wise  and  godly,  from  as  many  wise  and 
godly  men  ?  Because  the  Creator  is  wise,  is  He 
therefore  not  free?  This  world  is  not  the  only 
possible  product  of  God's  creative  rationality.  If 
there  is  but  one  line  along  which  reason  in  God 
and  man  can  proceed,  then  individuality  is  sacri- 
ficed, freedom  is  an  empty  name,  and  the  Many 
are  forever  merged  into  the  One.  The  law  of 
gravitation  is  rational ;  but  who  will  say  that  the 
concrete  law  which  science  finds  operative  in  the 
existing  cosmos  is  the  only  rational  form  which 

1  Quoted  by  Prof.  Ward,  Naturalism   and  Agnosticism,  vol. 
i.,  p.  207. 


56  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

that  law  could  have  assumed  ?  Who  can  tell  us 
that  there  could  not  have  been  a  world-order  in 
which  two  bodies  should  attract  each  other 
directly  as  the  squares  of  their  masses  and  in- 
versely as  the  cubes  of  the  distances  ?  If  it  be 
said  that  such  a  change  would  throw  the  whole 
world  out  of  gear,  we  answer  that  it  would  be 
another  world  which  would  have  that  law,  and 
that  that  world  would  be  thrown  out  of  gear  by 
the  law  that  we  have. 

This  is  why  human  reason  cannot  predict  the 
world  we  have.  This  is  why  the  only  way  to 
know  what  kind  of  a  world  we  have  is  to  go  out 
and  see  the  world  for  ourselves. 

Were  it  the  proper  time  to  do  so,  we  should  be 
glad  to  show  how  this  thought  bears  upon  the 
doctrine  of  miracle.  The  objection  is  urged 
that  the  laws  of  nature  are  the  laws  of  reason, 
and  that  for  God  to  suspend  the  laws  of  reason, 
is  impossible,  seeing  that  He  is  Himself  infinitely 
rational.  But  we  must  bear  in  mind  that,  while 
the  laws  of  nature  are  reasonable,  they  are  not 
the  laws  of  reason  in  the  sense  that  they  ex- 
clusively contain  and  embody  everything  that 
could  be  reasonable  and  right.  Reason  is  larger 
than  this  little  world  of  ours,  and  God  is  greater 
than  the  world  which  He  has  made. 


MODES  OF  APPROACHING  THE  COSMOS     57 

The  other  reason  for  the  disappointment  is  in 
the  fact  that  the  world-critic  is  not  equal  to  his 
task.  Helmholtz  criticised  the  eye  as  an  imper- 
fect mechanism  ;  but  Helmholtz  forgot  that  it  was 
designed  to  be  not  a  mechanism,  but  an  eye.  It 
you  say  that  the  teleology  of  special  organs  is  an 
obsolete  notion,  we  waive  the  question,  though  re- 
serving all  rights,  while  we  go  on  to  say  that,  so 
much  the  more,  the  entire  world  was  made,  not 
simply  under  some  speculative  philosopher's  in- 
spection, but  to  do  the  useful  work  and  to  accom- 
plish the  practical  purposes  of  a  world.  The  ab- 
stract geometrician  files  his  protests,  but  there  is 
much  reason  to  believe  that  the  geometer's  world 
would  less  successfully  serve  the  purposes  of  a 
world  than  the  world  we  have.  We  are  assured, 
on  highest  authority,  that  pure  mechanics  have  to 
do  with  ideas  not  facts,  with  calculations  not 
measurements.  Professor  Ward  says :  "  The 
most  elementary  conditions  fail  us.  We  have 
no  fixed  points,  no  fixed  directions,  no  accurate 
timekeeper,  not  one  demonstrably  constant  prop- 
erty of  a  physical  description."  i 

We  need  not  go  far  afield  for  these  disappoint- 
ments. The  mathematician  finds  discrepancies  in 
the  world ;  the  rationalist  finds  folly ;  the  aesthet- 

1  iVa/nraiism  and  Agnosticism,  vol.  i.,  p.  139. 


58  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

icist  finds  ugliness ;  and  the  moralist  finds  sin. 
Unless  the  critic  abandon  his  ideals,  he  will 
surely  find  something  to  condemn.  Who  is  to 
blame,  how  it  came  about,  what  it  all  means,  and 
how  it  is  to  end — these  are  questions  which  our 
volunteer  world-critic  must  be  able  to  answer 
before  he  can  pose  as  a  final  authority  upon 
cosmical  creations  and  careers.  If  it  be  too 
much  to  say  that  only  another  God  could  pass 
competent  judgment  upon  the  world-work  of  the 
One  Living  God,  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that 
only  when  a  man  has  comprehended  the  final 
purpose  of  creation ;  only  when  he  has  com- 
passed all  the  elements,  material  and  moral, 
which  are  needful  to  the  fulfillment  of  that  pur- 
pose ;  only  when  he  shall  have  mastered  the 
whole  complex  network  of  forces  that  are  strug- 
gling toward  some  goal  of  which  they  themselves 
are  faintly  conscious,  and  is  able  to  read  both  the 
past  and  the  future  in  the  cross  section  of  the 
present  moment,  all  bending  toward  that 

"  One  far-off  divine  event 
Toward  which  the  whole  creation  moves"  — 

not  until  then  is  mortal  man  entitled  to  sit  in 
supreme  judgment  upon  the  Wrftanscliauung  of 
his  Creator-God. 


MODES  OF  APPROACHING  THE  COSMOS     59 

The  other  of  the  two  possible  modes  of  ap- 
proach is  the  empirical,  the  inductive.  It  knows 
the  cosmos  by  going  out  to  see  it.  It  passes  by- 
subjective  ideals  and  prototypes  and  presents 
itself,  as  a  tabula  rasa,  to  let  the  world  write  out 
upon  it  the  story  of  its  autobiography.  This,  as 
we  have  seen,  calls  itself  Science,  and  all  of 
science.  It  is  scientific,  to  be  sure,  unless,  for- 
sooth, it  become  unscientific  in  calling  itself  all  of 
science.  This  method  needs  no  advocates  to-day. 
Empiricism  is  having  its  innings,  and  it  must  be 
said  that,  with  all  that  has  been  achieved,  it  is  little 
wonder  that  it  sometimes  becomes  patronizing 
and  proud.  For  the  truth  is  that,  noble  as  may 
be  its  superstructures,  it  must  go  away  from  home 
for  its  secure  foundations.  Science,  without  its 
presuppositions,  is  not  science  but  nonsense. 
Empiricism  is  all  right  in  its  place,  but  it  must  go 
to  school  to  metaphysics  before  it  can  be  safely 
licensed  to  do  business.  There  is  no  quack  more 
dangerous  than  the  scientific  man  who  repudiates 
the  laws  of  cognition  and  reasoning  and  thought 
which,  nolens  volens,  he  must  employ,  correctly  or 
incorrectly,  in  all  his  doings.  It  is  always  a  pity 
to  see  a  man  of  science  sullenly  snapping  back  at 
pure  philosophy.  Empiricism,  standing  alone,  is 
either  bashful  or  hypocritical  agnosticism,  and  the 


60  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

only  condition  of  its  standing  at  all  is  its  incon- 
sistency with  its  own  contentions. 

One  of  the  first  presuppositions  of  empirical 
science  is  our  familiar  postulate  of  the  unity  and 
rationality  of  the  cosmos.  Cosmical  science  is  pos- 
sible because  it  is  an  orderly  cosmos  which  it  in- 
vestigates. The  world  of  science  is  an  intclligibilis 
mundus  ;  it  is  the  transcript  of  a  rational  thought, 
the  product  of  a  rational  will.  This  thought  or  will 
is  not  itself  the  origin  of  the  Avorld.  Thought, 
feeling,  and  will,  are  not  agencies,  per  sc ;  they  are 
faculties  of  an  agent  and  that  faculty-possessing 
agent  is,  ipso  facto,  a  person.  The  eternal  Reason 
of  which  the  philosophers  make  so  much  is  not  a 
substantive,  it  is  an  adjective.  There  is  no  free 
will  in  man ;  it  is  the  man  himself  who  is  free  and 
his  will  is  just  the  man  himself  in  the  act  or  atti- 
tude of  choosing.  The  ego-vole ns,  the  cgo-intclli- 
gois,  the  cgo-soitiens,  is  the  only  agent  in  the 
whole  account.  We  hypostatize  the  Reason  or 
the  Will  or  the  Love  of  God  and  then  bow  down 
and  worship  the  fictitious  deity  which  our  own 
false  thinking  has  made,  while,  alas,  we  too  often 
forget  the  only  true  God  who,  as  a  substantive,  is 
characterized  by  these  attributes  of  infinite  reason,1 

1  The  theological  term  is  wisdom,  for  many  reasons,  the  more 
discriminative  word. 


MODES  OF  APPROACHING  THE  COSMOS     61 

and  infinite  power  and  infinite  love.  So  common 
is  this  way  of  naming  God  from  one  of  His  attri- 
butes that  most  careful  writers  adopt  it;  as,  for 
instance,  the  late  Prof.  Harris,  of  Yale,  says, 
"  Thus  the  existence  of  God,  the  absolute  Reason, 
is  the  ultimate  ground  of  the  possibility  of  scien- 
tific knowledge."  l  A  little  later  he  quotes  these 
words  from  President  Porter,  showing  that  his 
meaning  is  right  though  his  language,  literally 
construed,  is  inaccurate  :  "  In  other  words,  Induc- 
tion rests  on  the  assumption,  as  it  demands  for  its 
ground  that  a  personal  Deity  exists."2 

Science  means  intellectual  commerce  with  the 
divine  mind  by  means  of  the  thought-freighted 
symbols  which  constitute  the  orderly  world  that 
is  the  object  of  scientific  study.  It  is  the  meeting 
place  of  mind  with  mind,  the  trysting  place  of  the 
divine  thought  with  the  human.  The  astronomer 
is  threading  the  paths  of  mind  in  space ;  the 
geologist  is  tracing  its  tracks  in  earth-measured 
time;  in  beauty  of  form,  in  nicety  of  adjustment, 
in  adaptation  to  evident  ends,  and  in  the  inter- 
pretable  completeness  of  many  an  organic  unit 
which  is  at  once  complete  in  itself  and  a  small 
part   of   a   vastly   greater   whole,   the   exploring 

1  Philosophical  Basis  of  Theism,  p.  82. 

2  The  Human  Intellect,  sec.  497. 


62  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

student  reverently  recognizes  that  he  is  but  fol- 
lowing where  a  Perfect  Intelligence  has  blazed  the 
way.  As  Professor  Knight  has  clearly  said,  "  If 
all  the  life  and  movement  of  the  universe  can  be 
shown  to  be  an  apocalypse  of  Mind,  if  the  forces 
that  work  beyond  us  can  be  proved  to  be  kindred 
to  those  that  are  within  ourselves ;  if,  in  other 
words,  Nature  and  Man  are  fundamentally  akin, 
and  between  them  there  is  a  radical  affinity,  then 
for  us  the  foundations  of  Theism  are  laid."1 

It  must  not  be  supposed  that  this  implicit 
theism  of  cosmical  science  is  one  whit  the  less 
positive  because  some  men  of  science  have  denied 
it.  A  man  brands  himself  an  intellectual  enigma 
who  dogmatically  declares  himself  an  agnostic. 
Science  is  built  on  the  assumption  of  a  Person 
who  has  created  the  world ;  it  is  an  "  apocalypse 
of  mind,"  otherwise,  mind  could  not  read  or 
know  it ;  it  is,  in  the  language  of  theology,  a 
naturalis  revclatio,  and  that  which  is  revealed  is 
the  glory,  the  power  and  the  divinity  of  the 
Creator.2 

This  kinship  between  the  creative  and  the 
scientific  intelligence  is  the  inspiration  to  an  ever- 
enlarging   knowledge  of  the   cosmos.     It   is  as- 

1  Aspects  of  Theism,  by  Wm.  Knight,  LL.D.,  pp.  n,  12. 

2  Psalm  19  : 1  ;  Romans  1  :  19,  20. 


MODES  OF  APPROACHING  THE  COSMOS     63 

sumed  that  what  lies  beyond  the  circumference 
of  our  actual  knowledge  is  of  a  part  with  what 
we  already  know.  Science  has  no  possible  busi- 
ness with  the  word  "  Unknowable  "  ;  it  is  not  in  its 
legitimate  vocabulary.  Science  can  never  assert 
nor  assume  that  the  unknown  is  unknowable ; 
indeed,  it  is  forever  assuming  that  the  unknown  is 
knowable.  What  is,  is  essentially  knowable. 
The  astronomer  assumes  that  the  method  of 
thought  is  the  same  with  God  and  himself,  and 
so  he  figures  out  where  an  undiscovered  planet 
ouglit  to  be  ;  he  straightway  turns  his  glass  upon 
the  spot  and,  lo,  here  it  is.  As  the  spectroscope 
has  revealed  the  chemical  kinship  of  the  earth  and 
the  starry  worlds,  so  all  creation  discloses  the 
intellectual  kinship  between  the  Creator  and  His 
intelligent  creatures.  Science  holds  so  perti- 
naciously to  the  rationality  of  nature  that  it 
sometimes  ventures  upon  hypotheses — not  too 
strongly  supported — with  no  other  purpose  than 
to  make  the  world  intelligible.  Professor  Ward 
tells  us  that  it  is  with  this  purpose  alone  that 
science  assumes  the  existence  of  the  luminiferous 
ether  which,  by  the  bye  Lord  Kelvin  says,  in  his 
own  italics,  is  the  only  substance  in  dynamics 
whose  reality  and  substantiality  we  are  confident 
of,"  and  that  if  the  Newtonian  laws  should  ever 


64  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

be  denied,  this  hypothesis  would  have  to  give 
way  to  another  which  might  show  "  a  simpler  and 
more  complete  unification  of  optical  and  electrical 
phenomena."  * 

And  this  calls  to  mind  how  much  of  what  is 
given  to  us  as  scientific  certainty  is,  in  reality, 
very  much  of  the  nature  of  the  guesswork  of  in- 
telligent ignorance.  There  is  as  much  ignorance 
to-day  as  there  ever  was  concerning  the  essential 
constitution  of  matter  and  the  forces  by  which 
that  matter  is  controlled.  The  much-talkcd-of 
atom  is  invisible,  ideal,  purely  hypothetical ; 
Du  Bois-Rcymond  says  it  is  not  only  incompre- 
hensible but  also  "  inconceivable." 2  In  the  Most 
Holy  Place  of  science  there  ever  stands  the  sacred 
altar  of  Faith. 

The  truth  is  that  in  every  right  knowing  of  the 
cosmos  there  is  a  harmonious  blending  of  the  in- 
ductive and  the  deductive.  They  are  both  as  old 
as  human  thinking.  Neither  can  say  to  the  other, 
"  I  have  no  need  of  thee."  Lord  Bacon  was  no 
more  the  author  of  the  one  than  was  Plato  of  the 
other.     It  is  the  same  world  which  both  see ;  only, 

1  See  Naturalism  and  Agnosticism,  vol.  i.,  pp.  113,  H5>  116, 
117. 

2  See  Lange's  History  of  Materialism,  vol.  ii.,  p.  309; 
Thomas's  translation. 


MODES  OF  APPROACHING  THE  COSMOS     65 

the  view  of  each  is  a  corrective  of  that  of  the  other. 
As  Kant  has  taught  us,  the  concept  is  empty- 
without  perception  and  perception  is  blind  with- 
out the  concept.  The  philosopher  tells  us,  in  the 
abstract,  how  to  think,  and  the  scientist  gives  us, 
in  the  concrete,  something  to  think  about.  A 
logical  world  might  have  no  actuality,  but,  Mr. 
Bradley  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  we  do 
not  believe  that  an  actual  world  could  be  wholly 
illogical.  At  any  rate,  an  illogical  world  would 
be  unintelligible  and,  therefore,  unscientific;  the 
scientist  could  make  no  headway  in  it.  It  would 
be  hopeless  promiscuosity,  utter  unintelligibility, 
not  cosmos  but  chaos. 

Our  purpose  in  all  this  is  not  that  of  idle  specu- 
lation. We  posit  God  in  our  conception  of  the 
world,  and  then  we  go  on  to  read  His  thought  as 
bodied  forth  therein.  He  is  wise,  and  we  look  to 
His  world  for  marks  of  His  wisdom;  He  is 
rational,  and  we  look  into  the  world  for  rational- 
ity ;  He  is  holy,  and  we  look  to  His  works  for 
proofs  of  His  holiness.  Some  world-critics  place 
their  emphasis  here ;  others,  there.  Mr.  Spencer 
posits  infinite  power  and  sees  in  the  cosmos  every- 
where manifestations  of  that  power;  but  Mr. 
Spencer  has  never  shown  why  his  favorite  con- 
ception of  power  should  be  thus  chosen  out  to 
5 


66  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

the  prejudice  of  others  among  the  attributes  of 
God.  Why  not  just  as  well  begin  with  rationality 
or  righteousness  or  benevolence  and  then  proceed 
to  trace  out  the  development  of  reason  or  holiness 
or  love  in  the  career  of  the  cosmos  ?  Certainly 
he  cannot  reply  that  the  conception  of  power  is 
less  anthropomorphic  than  that  of  any  of  these ; 
indeed,  were  it  not  special  pleading,  we  should  in- 
sist that,  in  the  common  categories  of  a  refined 
ethical  sense,  the  concept  of  power  is  less  enno- 
bling, less  honoring,  than  is  that  of  wisdom,  or 
goodness,  or  love.  I  confess  that  this  were  special 
pleading,  because  any  conception  or  attribution 
which  we  men  may  essay  concerning  the  Infinite 
God  is  truly  anthropomorphic.  We  are  far  less 
afraid  of  the  bogy  of  anthropomorphism  than  Mr. 
Spencer  is ;  he  is  so  scared  away  from  any  man- 
conceived  God,  that  he  prefers  no  conceivable 
God  whatever. 

Mr.  John  Fiske  is  a  philosopher  of  the  Spen- 
cerian  family,  though  of  a  much  improved  variety, 
and  in  his  Outlines  of  the  Cosmic  Pliilosopliy ,  he 
adheres  in  the  main  to  the  lines  of  his  master's 
Synthetic  Pliilosopliy.  His  later  religio-philosoph- 
ical  writings,  however,  are  very  much  of  the 
nature  of  palinodes,  and  the  Fiske  of  to-day x  is 
xThis  was  written  before  Mr.  Fiske' s  death. 


MODES  OF  APPROACHING  THE  COSMOS     67 

scarcely  recognizable  from  the  pages  of  the  Cosmic 
Philosophy.  We  now  only  intend  to  challenge 
Mr.  Fiske's  right  to  the  name  which  he  selected 
for  his  philosophy.  He  tells  us  that  he  carefully 
selected  it,  in  the  face  of  certain  objections  from 
Mr.  Spencer.1  With  Mr.  Spencer,  he  clings  to 
force  as  the  only  clue  in  tracing  the  world-devel- 
opment. But  the  word  "  Cosmic  "  is  too  heavily 
loaded  to  fit  the  bare  postulate  of  the  agnostic. 
No  man  who  denies  or  ignores  every  other  attri- 
bute in  the  originator  of  the  world  has  any  right 
to  characterize  the  world  as  orderly,  intelligible, 
cosmical.  If  his  world  is  cosmical,  it  is  because 
he  has  gone  out  into  the  world  and  found  it  so ; 
accordingly,  his  system  is  too  pretentiously 
named ;  it  is  cosmical  science  or  it  is  nothing. 
Even  yet,  Mr.  Fiske  begrudges  the  ordering  attri- 
bute to  the  Creator,  or  the  author,  or  the  unknown 
origin  of  the  world.  At  the  best,  we  have  to  write 
into  our  world-creed  what  we  began  by  explicitly 
taking  out.  That  creed,  at  the  first  stripped  of  all 
theistically  cosmical  presuppositions,  grows,  in  the 
course  of  our  world-inquiries,  into  the  faith  that  a 
world,  born  in  a  mist,  nurtured  in  the  shadows, 
maturing  under  the  tender  mercies  of  chance,  a 
neglected,  vagrant,  self-evolving  world, — a  spray 

1  Outlines  of  Cosmic  PJrilosophy,  vol.  i.,  p.  ix. 


68  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

from  the  fountain  of  infinite  force,  swinging  for  a 
world-age  between  two  cycles  of  utter  disintegra- 
tion— that  such  a  world  has  managed  somehow  to 
gather  up  into  itself  such  elements  of  intelligence 
and  order  and  design  as  induced  Mr.  Fiske  in 
outlining  its  course,  to  call  the  prodigious  under- 
taking, the  "  Cosmic  Philosophy."  Verily,  agnos- 
ticism has  its  heavy  draughts  upon  the  credulity 
of  men.  A  miracle  too  great  for  an  infinite  God 
is  wrought  by  the  poor  age-tossed  nebulous 
world,  whose  autobiography  we  would  fain  trace. 
Here  is  a  fine  bit  of  world-creating,  indeed.  Who 
will  say  that  such  a  philosophy,  however  much  it 
may  abhor  them  at  the  start,  has  not  somewhere 
smuggled  in  assumptions  that  are  most  astonish- 
ing and  most  significant?  We  question  the  right 
to  regard  the  world  as  a  cosmos,  except  we  regard 
the  source  of  the  world  as  a  Logos.  It  is  an 
imaginary  line  which  divides  the  moral  from  the 
rational,  either  in  heaven  or  on  earth.  Speaking 
most  broadly,  if  the  world  is  unrational,  it  is  irra- 
tional; and  if  it  is  unmoral,  it  is  immoral.  The 
cosmos  is  uncosmical  if  it  be  not  teleological ;  it 
is  immoral  if  it  have  not  a  worthy  end.  The 
cosmos  swings  between  its  remote  ahxq  and  its 
far-off  zkloz, ;  if  it  sprang  from  the  creative  fiat  of 
a  God  of  truth  and  reason  and  love,  then  its  aim 


MODES  OF  APPROACHING  THE  COSMOS     69 

must  be  harmonious  with  its  origin,  its  goal  must 
be  akin  to  its  initiating  impulse. 

Not  that  we  would  force  upon  the  world  a 
moral  character  by  the  mandamus  of  a  meta- 
physical "  must  ";  not  that  we  would  read  into  it 
excellences  and  amiabilities  which  an  open- 
minded  study  of  it  would  fail  to  disclose ;  but 
regarding  it  as  we  find  it,  as  the  product  of  crea- 
tive wisdom  and  holiness  and  love,  we  have  a 
right  to  scan  its  biography,  to  read  its  revelations, 
to  interpret  its  movements,  and  to  cross-question 
its  unyielding  mysteries,  modestly,  searchingly, 
reverently,  in  the  full  light  of  its  accredited  cre- 
dentials, in  order  to  learn  for  ourselves  whether 
this  scarred  and  slandered  old  world  is  fierce  with 
cruelty,  dark  with  sorrow,  breeding  only  the 
skepticism  of  despair ;  or  whether  there  is  a  high 
over-arching  plan,  wise,  good,  loving,  and  true, 
which,  under  the  patient,  beneficent  hand  of  the 
Infinite  and  Eternal  God,  is  slowly  working  itself 
out  into  a  final,  glorious  consummation.  Is  the 
voice  of  Browning's  Pippa  the  voice  of  reason  or 
of  superstition,  of  a  chastened  and  far-sighted 
faith  or  of  childhood's  flippant  and  rose-tinted 
fancy  as,  in  passing,  she  sweetly  sings, 

"God's  in  His  heaven — 
All's  right  with  the  world"  ? 


LECTURE  III 
THE   EMPIRICAL  SURPRISE 


LECTURE  III 

THE  EMPIRICAL  SURPRISE 

It  needs  no  expert  in  science  to  discover  very 
soon  that  the  beautiful  worlds  which  poets  have 
framed  and  which  speculative  philosophers  have 
been  spinning  are  not  exactly  the  sort  of  world 
with  which  we  come  into  constant  contact  in  the 
wear  and  tear  of  life.  Not  that  these  show-case 
worlds  are  so  much  at  fault ;  not  that  they  suffer 
so  much  when  compared  with  the  one  world 
which  has  somehow  managed  to  work  itself  out 
into  crude  actuality;  rather,  shall  we  say  it,  the 
discrepancy  between  the  ideal  and  the  real  is  due 
to  the  shortcomings  and  misdemeanors  of  the 
world  we  are  in.  This  is  the  great  scandal  of 
philosophy;  this  is  the  stumbling-block  of  the 
fine-fibered  poet ;  this  is  "  The  Empirical  Sur- 
prise." l  It  is  the  bete  noir  of  every  attempt  at 
theodicy,  and  it  is  the  barrier  that  stands  in  the 
way  of  many  a  thoughtful  man's  devout  faith  in  a 

1  I  had  thought  myself  indebted  to  Dr.  Julius  Miiller's 
Christian  Doctrine  of  Sin  for  this  happy  phrase  ;  but  in  looking 
carefully  for  it,  I  have  failed  to  find  it  there. 

73 


74  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

God    that  is   both    infinitely   holy   and   infinitely 
powerful. 

The  attempt  has  often  been  made  to  dodge  this 
issue,  but  never  with  success.  It  was  Browning's 
a  priori  thought,  and  not  Pippa's  discovery,  that 
since  God  is  in  heaven,  all's  well  with  the  world. 
The  awful  scenes  of  crime  and  cruelty  and 
injustice  which  are  enacted  in  every  age  and 
country,  have  made  men  cynical  and  they  have 
answered  with  a  sneer  that  God  must  be  taking 
His  rest  in  some  distant  heaven,  and  has  left  this 
poor  orphaned  world  uncared-for,  the  bruised  and 
bleeding  victim  of  every  hard  chance  and  hellish 
fate.  If  men  will  cease  their  spider-like  world- 
spinning  and  walk  out  into  the  field  or  forest,  into 
the  street  or  the  exchange,  they  will  find  on 
every  hand  rivalry,  struggle,  hatred,  war,  sorrow, 
suffering,  tears,  groans,  death.  If  they  would 
quietly  dissolve  the  scene  into  a  panorama  of 
mere  illusion,  they  will  rightly  be  written  down 
as  silly  or  insane.  If  they  would  say,  with 
Leibnitz,  that  it  is  the  best  world  possible,  the 
question  comes  back  at  once,  "Why  then  should 
there  be  any  world  at  all?"  If  they  would  con- 
vince us  that  all  this  is  needful  for  the  outwork- 
ing of  a  great  world-plan,  that  the  individual 
must  die  that  the  race  may  live,  that  the  vir  must 


THE  EMPIRICAL  SURPRISE  75 

fade  that  the  liomo  may  thrive,  then  the  answer  is 
not  long  in  coming  that  the  fine  theory  draws  too 
largely  upon  what  we  do  not  know  and  that  if 
the  things  we  see  are  a  fair  sample  of  the  unseen, 
then  there  is  little  solid  warrant  for  the  preten- 
tious fancy.  There  is  no  blinking  or  shirking  this 
stupendous  difficulty.  Every  thoughtful  man  has 
faced  it;  every  religious  system  must  recognize  it; 
every  honest  thinker  admits  it. 

It  matters  not  from  what  quarter  we  may  hail, 
we  find  the  same  dark  problem  at  the  center. 
The  fine  ideals  of  our  dreaming  are  met  with  a 
broken  tally  in  the  fact.  Rational  theorists  find 
vast  fields  of  sheer  waste,  long  eras  of  arrested 
development,  generations  which,  measured  by  the 
standards  of  their  own  maturity,  never  come  to 
be  more  than  mere  abortions.  Esthetic  theorists 
look  about  them  and  behold  ugliness  on  every 
side,  alongside  of  beauty ;  they  see  horrors  and 
monstrosities  in  the  fields  of  nature;  they  see 
flaws  in  the  landscape,  blemishes  in  the  body,  and 
defects  in  the  lives  and  deeds  of  men.  Benevo- 
lent theorists  find  suffering  races  ground  down 
under  the  heel  of  the  oppressor,  organic  nature 
"  red  in  tooth  and  claw,"  and  the  very  elements 
of  earth  and  air  and  sea  seeming  to  revel  in  the 
sighs  and  groans   of   the  calamities  which  they 


76  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

ruthlessly  and  pitilessly  inflict.  It  is  a  strange 
world,  a  deranged  world,  a  disordered  world ; 
benevolence  shadowed  by  malevolence,  beauty 
hounded  by  horrors,  happiness  haunted  by  suffer- 
ing, health  dogged  by  disease,  life  threatened  and 
finally  swallowed  up  by  death. 

Many  have  turned  away  heart-sick  and  have 
abandoned  every  hope  of  a  rational  solution. 
They  have  said,  "  There  is  no  solution,  there  is 
no  clue,  there  is  no  God."  They  have  looked  for 
light,  but  they  say  they  have  found  none.  They 
have  been  tempted  to  say,  with  Dryden, 

"  Yet  sure  the  gods  are  good ;  I  would  think  so, 
If  they  would  give  me  leave; 
But  virtue  in  distress,  and  vice  in  triumph, 
Make  atheists  of  mankind." 

But  these,  dark  as  they  are,  are  but  the 
penumbra  of  the  real  problem.  Waste,  ugliness, 
even  physical  pain  and  mental  anguish,  do  not 
complete  the  mystery.  Waste,  rightly  read,  may 
be  compatible  with  wisdom ;  what  men  call  ugly 
may  be  beautiful  when  seen  with  a  truer  eye  and 
from  a  higher  point  of  view;  even  suffering  for  a 
time  may  be  for  the  bettering  of  the  sufferer  or  in 
order  that,  if  not  they  themselves,  then  other 

"Men  may  rise  on  stepping-stones 
Of  their  dead  selves  to  higher  things." 


THE  EMPIRICAL  SURPRISE  ?j 

The  centrum  of  the  dark  spot  in  the  field  of 
human  wisdom  is  in  the  fact  of  Sin.  What  we 
call  natural  evil  is  hard  enough,  but  the  real 
enigma  is  in  moral  evil.  Indeed,  the  chief  difficulty 
in  the  former  is  due  to  its  organic  connection  with 
the  latter.  Professor  Orr  may  well  say :  "  Take 
away  from  the  history  of  humanity  all  the  evils 
which  have  come  on  man  through  his  own  folly, 
sin,  and  vice ;  through  the  follies  and  vices  of 
society;  through  tyranny,  misgovernment,  and 
oppression ;  through  the  cruelty  and  inhumanity 
of  man  to  man,  and  how  vast  a  portion  of  the 
problem  of  evil  would  already  be  solved  !  What 
myriads  of  lives  have  been  sacrificed  at  the 
shrines  of  Bacchus  and  of  lust ;  what  untold 
misery  has  been  inflicted  on  the  race,  to  gratify 
the  unscrupulous  ambitions  of  ruthless  con- 
querors ;  what  tears  and  groans  have  sprung 
from  the  institution  of  slavery ;  what  wretched- 
ness is  hourly  inflicted  on  human  hearts  by 
domestic  tyranny,  private  selfishness,  the  preying 
of  the  strong  upon  the  weak,  dishonesty  and 
chicanery  in  society !  ...  If  all  the  suffering  and 
sorrow  which  follow  directly  or  indirectly  from 
human  sin  could  be  abstracted,  what  a  happy 
world,  after  all,  this  would  be !" x 

1  The  Christian  View  of  God  and  the  World,  p.  218. 


78  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

We  do  not  deny,  nor  does  Professor  Orr,  that, 
at  any  rate  so  far  as  we  can  see,  there  are  natural 
evils  in  the  world  independent  of  sin ;  but,  at  the 
very  worst,  they  are  a  small  part  of  the  problem 
that  confronts  us.  Dr.  Martineau  says  that  judging 
from  "  the  threnodies  of  the  modern  pessimist,"  it 
is  not  so  much  the  sin  as  the  misery  of  the  world 
by  which  men  are  impressed.  This,  however,  is 
to  magnify  the  sad  effect  to  the  hiding  of  its 
cause  and,  viewing  the  problem  at  the  wrong 
angle,  to  look  in  the  wrong  direction  for  promised 
relief.  The  real  issue  cannot  be  more  clearly  or 
correctly  stated  than  Dr.  Martineau  has  himself 
stated  it :  "  The  question  which  presses  upon  us 
is  not,  '  How  does  it  consist  with  the  benevolence 
of  God  to  admit  so  much  morally  incurred 
pain  f  but  '  How  does  it  consist  with  the  holiness 
of  God  to  admit  so  much  nnholincss  in  human 
life  ?  '  "  l 

This  fact  of  sin  has  spoiled  countless  pretty 
theories  of  the  world  ;  it  has  wrecked  a  host  of 
bric-a-brac  schemes  of  history ;  and  it  has  barred 
the  way  against  any  smooth,  ethical  interpreta- 
tion of  the  cosmos.  How  moral  evil  can  have  a 
place  in  the  world  of  a  holy  God  is  the  crux 
philosopliorum  ct  thcologorum.      It  is  so  difficult 

1  A  Study  of  Religion^  vol.  ii.,  p.  IOO.     Italics  his. 


THE  EMPIRICAL  SURPRISE  79 

because  it  involves  so  much  more  than  its  appar- 
ent self.  If  there  is  an  "  antinomy  "  anywhere, 
it  is  this.  Here  is  the  question  of  the  Absolute 
and  the  Individual,  of  the  One  and  the  Many,  of 
Necessity  and  Liberty,  of  Predestination  and 
Freedom,  of  Good  and  Evil.  I  am  persuaded 
that  all  the  dark  mysteries  of  our  world  center  in 
this  impenetrable  focus,  this  inextricable  maze. 

Two  important  considerations  must  never  be 
overlooked. 

First,  we  must,  through  it  all,  hold  that  God  is 
still  God.  Mr.  J.  S.  Mill  attempted  a  solution 
by  virtually  surrendering  theism.  His  position 
was  about  equivalent  to  a  revival  of  Persian 
Dualism ;  he  would  excuse  God  by  holding,  in 
effect,  that  He  does  the  best  He  can.  "  If  the 
maker  of  the  world  can  all  that  he  will,  he 
wills  misery;  and  there  is  no  escape  from  the 
conclusion." l  While  he  is  disposed  to  admit 
that  "  there  is  a  preponderance  of  evidence 
that  the  Creator  desired  the  pleasure  of  his 
creatures,"2  yet  whatever  beneficence  there  is  is 
"armed  only  with  limited  power."3  While  we 
may  accord  great  respect  to  the  honesty  of  pur- 

1  Three  Essays  on  Religion,  p.  37. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  191. 
8  Ibid.,  p.  65. 


80  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

pose  of  Mr.  Mill's  skeptical  spirit,  as  shown  in 
these  posthumous  essays,  yet  his  view-point  is 
open  to  two  serious  criticisms.  In  the  first  place, 
he  did  not  rise  to  the  higher  levels  of  his 
problem ;  he  brooded  rather  over  the  miseries 
than  over  the  vices  of  men.  Indeed,  with  his 
positivistic  philosophy  and  his  utilitarian  ethical 
theory,  he  could  hardly  do  otherwise.  In  the 
second  place,  it  was  due  to  his  philosophy  that 
his  theodicy  turned  upon  the  Creator's  attribute 
of  power.  He  held  that  "  every  indication  of 
Design  in  the  cosmos  is  so  much  evidence  against 
the  omnipotence  of  the  Designer." *  Thus  he 
played  the  divine  reason  against  the  divine  power ; 
only  a  world  of  chaos,  by  this  reasoning,  could 
prove  a  Creator  who  is  divine.  Power  alone  is 
divine,  and  the  more  lawless  it  is,  the  more  divine. 
To  "  brute  force  "  we  offer  our  petitions,  and  Mr. 
Browning  has  voiced  our  prayer  for  us: — 

"  Power,  speak ! 
Stop  change,  avert  decay  ! 
Fix  life  fast,  banish  death, 
Eclipse  from  the  star  bid  stay, 
Abridge  of  no  moment's  breath 
One  creature  !  Hence,  Night,  hail,  Day  !  "  2 

Mr.  Mill  insists  that  either  the  goodness  or  the 
1  Three  Essays  on  Religion. ,  p.  176.  ''■Reverie. 


THE  EMPIRICAL  SURPRISE  81 

power  of  God  is  limited.  "  If  we  are  not  obliged 
to  believe  the  animal  creation  to  be  the  work  of  a 
demon,  it  is  because  we  need  not  suppose  it  to 
have  been  made  by  a  Being  of  infinite  power."  l 

If  speculative  world-making  needs  the  cor- 
rective of  sane  empiricism,  it  is  more  necessary 
that  empirical  world-finding  should  have  the  tonic 
of  a  healthy  intuitionalism.  Mr.  Mill  lacked  this 
tonic.  The  theism  of  cosmical  research  needs  the 
fine  perceptions  of  the  moral  sense  in  order  that 
it  may  not  lose  itself  in  the  bewildering  labyrinths 
which  it  is  sure  to  encounter;  and  that,  with  a 
larger  view  and  a  faith  that  conquers  many  a 
mystery,  it  may  sing,  with  Whittier : — 

"  I  see  the  wrong  that  round  me  lies, 
I  feel  the  guilt  within  ; 
I  hear,  with  groan  and  travail-cries, 
The  world  confess  its  sin. 

"  Yet,  in  the  maddening  maze  of  things, 
And  tossed  by  storm  and  flood, 
To  one  fixed  stake  my  spirit  clings ; 
I  know  that  God  is  good."  2 

The  other  important  consideration  to  be  men- 
tioned is,  that  if  we  must  guard  theism  against 
compromise,  we  must  guard  the  doctrine  of  Sin 
not  one  whit  less.     We  must  yield  nothing  here 

1  Three  Essays  on  Religion,  p.  58.      2  The  Eternal  Goodness. 
6 


82  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

for  the  sake  of  plausible  theoretical  reconcilia- 
tions. Not  in  the  least  degree  can  we  afford  to 
invalidate  the  unqualified  testimony  of  conscious- 
ness. It  is  of  the  very  essence  of  sin  that  it  is 
what  ought  not  to  be.  It  is  Schelling's  "  das 
Nicht-sein-sollende."  To  give  the  lie  to  the  moral 
sense  in  order  to  yield  to  rational  exactions,  is  to 
lose  on  one  side  what  we  gain  on  the  other ;  it  is 
robbing  Peter  to  pay  Paul.  The  besetting  sin  of 
modern  thought  is  the  denying  of  the  sinfulness 
of  sin.  To  reconcile  God  and  sin,  Mill  stripped 
God  of  His  godlikeness ;  but  present-day  pan- 
theism would  rob  sin  of  its  sinfulness.  It  is  a 
necessary  fact  or  factor  in  the  constitution  of 
things,  or  it  is  a  normal  stage  in  the  development 
of  a  moral  being.  There  is  no  strength  without 
struggle,  no  victory  without  striving. 

"Man 
Must  err  till  he  has  ceased  to  struggle." 

As  there  can  be  no  struggle  without  a  resisting 
force,  so  sin  has  its  necessary  place  in  the  develop- 
ment of  virtue,  in  the  individual  and  in  the  race. 
If  evil  be  not,  as  Emerson  thinks,  "  good  in  the 
making,"  it  is  at  least  needful  to  the  making  of 
good ;  and  we  believe  that  it  is  only  sophistry 
that  can  show  the  difference.     Evolutionary  the- 


THE  EMPIRICAL  SURPRISE  83 

ories  of  human  history  have  very  grave  difficulty 
in  holding  to  the  essential  blameworthiness  of  sin. 
The  prevalent  color-blindness  to  the  distinction 
between  metaphysical  evil  and  moral  wrong 
abounds  in  all  popular  literature.  Evil  is  no 
longer  evil  because,  without  evil,  good  could  not 
be  good.     Shelley  tells  us  that 

"  Private  injustice  may  be  general  good," 

reminding  us  of  Pope's  line, 

"  All  partial  evil,  universal  good  ;  " 

both  borrowing  from  Schelling's  notion  that  "all 
evil  vanishes  when  seen  sub  specie  cztermtatis." 

The  great  theological  poet  of  modern  England 
has  voiced  this  sin-dissolving  optimism,  and,  with 
all  the  charms  of  his  genius,  has  preached  the 
delusive  error  to  an  all-too-willing  age.  Good 
Bishop  Blougram  has  his  good  word  for  "the 
blessed  evil,"  the  felix  culpa,  strangely  enough, 
because  it  helps  to  hide  God : — 

"Some  think,  Creation's  meant  to  show  him  forth ; 
I  say  it's  meant  to  hide  him  all  it  can, 
And  that's  what  all  the  blessed  evil's  for."  l 

Again,  we  are  told, 

1  Bishop  Blougram'1  s  Apology. 


84  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

"  Fair  and  good  are  products 
Of  foul  and  evil  ;  one  must  bring  to  pass  the  other, 
Just  as  poisons  grow  drugs."  l 

In  any  case,  we  are  to  "  concede  a  use  to  evil," 
for  it  is 

"The  scheme  by  which  through  ignorance 
Good  labors  to  exist."  2 

If  Mr.  Browning's  optimism  is  too  outspoken, 
many  will  be  disposed  to  turn  to  Tennyson,  and 
will  let  him  sing  their  wish  as,  falling  into  his 
all-too-frequent  agnostic  mood,  he  warbles  on, 

"O  yet  we  trust  that  somehow  good 
Will  be  the  final  goal  of  ill, 
To  pangs  of  nature,  sins  of  will, 
Defects  of  doubt,  and  taints  of  blood. 


"  Behold  we  know  not  anything  ; 
I  can  but  trust  that  good  shall  fall 
At  last— far  off— at  last,  to  all, 
And  every  winter  change  to  spring."  s 

We  are  bound  to  dismiss  any  theory  that  would 
make  everything  ethical — even  "  sins  of  will  " — 
nothing  more  than  what  Chauncey  White  would 
call  "  weather."  It  sinks  the  moral  in  the  natural, 
the  ethical  in  the  cosmical.  Its  only  defense  of 
doing  evil  that  good  may  come  is  that  there  is  no 

1  Pietro  of  Abano.  '  Sordcllo.  *  In  Mcmoriam. 


THE  EMPIRICAL  SURPRISE  85 

radical  difference  between  them.  It  removes  the 
difficulty  we  are  considering  by  denying  that  sin 
is  sin.  It  solves  the  problem  by  dissolving  it. 
We  abhor  any  philosophy  which  openly  or 
covertly  denies  the  truth  that  the  sin  which 
our  moral  consciousness  unqualifiedly  condemns 
is  that  which  ought  not  to  be. 

But,  it  will  be  said — and  truly — that  all  this 
only  accentuates  the  difficulty  instead  of  remov- 
ing it  or  relieving  it.  Suppose  we  now  venture 
forward  timidly  toward  the  mouth  of  the  dark 
cave,  taking  care  that,  whether  we  really  explore 
anything  or  not,  we  shall  keep  to  safe  and  solid 
ground.  Let  us  proceed  by  means  of  a  number 
of  consecutive  propositions  which  we  cannot  take 
time  to  prove,  however  it  might  be  with  us  if  we 
had  the  time.  That  was  a  very  suggestive 
remark  of  Renan,  in  discussing  this  very  subject 
in  connection  with  the  Book  of  Job,  to  the  effect 
that  "  the  genius  of  the  poem  lies  in  the  inde- 
cision of  the  author  on  a  subject  where  indecision 
is  the  truth." x  If  it  is  genius  to  be  timid  with 
this  problem,  then  there  is  no  middle  ground 
between  being  a  genius  and  being  a  fool.  But, 
on  the  other  hand,  it  must  not  be  inferred  that 

1  History  of  the  People  of  Israel ;  quoted  by  Prof.  Bruce  in 
The  Moral  Order  of  the  World,  p.  233. 


86  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

all   unsupported  propositions   are    products  of  a 
hasty  or  dogmatic  spirit. 

I.  We  hold  it  to  be  indisputable  that  if  God  is 
good,  the  world  which  He  has  made  is  good 
also.  We  do  not  stop  now  to  consider  in  what 
sense  moral  good  is  predicable  alike  of  the 
Creator  and  the  creature,  though  that  sense  is 
much  affected  according  as  the  creature  is  per- 
sonal or  impersonal.  A  holy  God  is  not  the 
author  of  moral  evil.  The  Reformed  theology 
has  often  been  charged  with  this  teaching,  but  it 
has  never  hesitated,  in  explicit  terms,  to  disavow 
it.1  The  thoughtful  and  scholarly  Cyprian,  baf- 
fled by  the  puzzling  query, 

"  In  what  manner 
Can  supreme  goodness  be  consistent  with 
The  passions  of  humanity?" 

reasoned  his  way  out  so  far  to  a  right  conclusion, 
when  he  said, 

"  Such  awe  is  due  to  the  high  name  of  God 
That  ill  should  never  be  imputed.     Then, 
Examining  the  question  with  more  care, 
It  follows,  that  the  gods  should  always  will 
That  which  is  best,  were  they  supremely  good."  2 

1  See  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  chap,  iii.,  sec.  I. 

2  Shelley's  Scenes  from  the  "Magico  Prodigioso"  of  Calderon. 


THE  EMPIRICAL  SURPRISE  87 

No  Christian  theodicy  can  start  out  with  less  than 
this. 

2.  There  is  sin  in  the  world.  President  Ed- 
wards was  certainly  right  in  insisting  upon  the 
difference  between  the  cause  and  the  nature  of 
virtue  and  vice,  and  in  urging  that  the  essence  lies 
in  their  nature,  whatever  their  origin.1  Any  theory 
that  denies  sin,  whether  among  the  rose-tinted 
sentiments  of  poetry ;  or  in  the  postulates  of  an 
all-embracing  cosmical  evolution ;  or  in  an  ideal- 
istic philosophy  of  history  which  is  only  an  alias 
for  a  more  or  less  disguised  pantheism, — any  such 
theory  falsifies  the  most  immediate  and  unmis- 
takable testimony  of  man's  moral  consciousness, 
and  is  therefore  dismissed  as  false. 

3.  It  is  perfectly  evident,  then,  that  the  solution 
sought  must  lie  somewhere  in  the  region  of  the 
independence  of  the  creature.  Dr.  Julius  Muller 
says,  "  The  only  way  of  avoiding  this  circle  mani- 
festly is  to  discover  and  point  out,  in  the  nature 
of  the  creature  in  whom  evil  is,  such  a  principle 
of  independence  as  may  account  for  and  originate 
a  new  beginning;  so  that  thus  a  limit  may  be 
established,  beyond  which  the  origin  of  sin  must 
not  be  looked  for." 2     Here  we  are  reminded  of 

1  Freedom  of  the  Will,  part  iv.,  sec.  I. 

*  On  the  Christian  Doctrine  of  Sin,  vol.  ii.,  p.  2. 


88  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

Professor  Jowett's  remark  that  the  notion  of  first 
and  second  cooperating  causes,  having  first  been 
broached  in  Plato's  Tim&iis,  has  long  been  "a 
great  peacemaker  between  theology  and  science."1 
This  doctrine  of  the  efficiency  of  second  causes, 
though  they  are  derivative  and  somehow  depend- 
ent, is  not  without  vigorous  challenge,  but  it  holds 
its  own  in  sound  philosophy  to-day.  We  believe 
not  in  the  First  Cause  only,  for  that  is  pantheism ; 
then  God  is  the  author  of  sin,  God  is  all  that  is, 
and  our  own  consciousness  of  the  ego  within  us 
is  a  delusion  and  a  lie.  We  believe  not  in  second 
causes  only,  for  that  is  deism  with  all  its  effectu- 
ally exploded  fallacies. 

We  are  not  interested  just  now  to  argue  for  the 
efficiency  of  second  causes  in  the  sub-human  or 
in  the  inanimate  and  impersonal  world.  But  if 
the  human  personality,  with  its  distinguishing  pre- 
rogatives of  self-consciousness  and  self-determina- 
tion, is  not  an  alter  ego  to  God ;  if  we  may  not 
"thou"  God,  just  as  He  in  addressing  us 
"  thous  "  us,  then  again  our  innermost  conscious- 
ness is  convicted  of  breaking  the  ninth  command- 
ment, and  we  are  wholly  at  sea.  Sin — the  essence 
of  our  problem — is  primarily  personal  in  its  na- 
ture and  in  its  origin,  and,  therefore,  in  ferreting 
jowett's  Plato,  vol.  iii.,  p.  417. 


THE  EMPIRICAL  SURPRISE  89 

out  this  principle  of  independence,  it  suffices  that 
we  maintain  the  self-initiating  efficiency  of  the 
human  personality. 

4.  Man,  the  person,  is  free.  This  is  a  corollary 
from,  or  rather  it  is  an  implicate  of,  his  faculty  of 
self-determination.  A  choice  that  is  not  free  is 
no  more  a  choice  than  is  a  circle  that  is  rectan^u- 
lar  a  circle.  It  is  a  contradictio  in  adjcctivo. 
That  the  person  is  free  is  the  testimony  of  his 
consciousness,  but  differences  arise  in  reading 
the  meaning  of  that  freedom.  It  is  as  easy  to 
overload  the  testimony  of  consciousness  in  this 
matter  as  to  rob  it  of  its  due  weight;  and  it  has 
been  as  often  done.  Positively,  consciousness 
tells  us  that  we  are  free  in  choosing  as  we  choose. 
Three  mistakes  are  easily  made  as  to  the  negative 
testimony  of  consciousness. 

(I.)  It  does  not  tell  us  that  we  are  free  to 
do  what  we  choose  to  do.  Dr.  Whedon  does 
well  to  bring  out  the  distinction  between  what 
he  calls  volitional  freedom,  having  regard  to 
the  volition  itself,  and  voluntary  freedom,  hav- 
ing regard  to  the  "  post-volitional  act." 1  This 
seems  a  simple  and  obvious  distinction,  and 
yet  students  in   the  lecture  room  are  constantly 

1  The  Freedom  of  the  Will,  by  D.  D.  Whedon,  D.  D.,  pp. 
25,  26. 


9o  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

overlooking  it.  No  writer  makes  it  clearer  than 
does  the  ever-lucid  Calvin,  when  he  says :  "  For 
in  the  dispute  concerning  free  will,  the  question  is 
not,  whether  a  man,  notwithstanding  external 
impediments,  can  perform  and  execute  whatever 
he  may  have  resolved  in  his  mind ;  but  whether  in 
every  case  his  judgment  exerts  freedom  of  choice, 
and  his  will  freedom  of  inclination.  If  men  pos- 
sess both  these,  then  Attilius  Regulus,  when  con- 
fined to  the  small  extent  of  a  cask  stuck  round 
with  nails,  will  possess  as  much  free  will  as 
Augustus  Caesar,  when  governing  a  great  part  of 
the  world  with  his  nod."1  We  are  always  free  in 
choosing,  otherwise  we  do  not  choose ;  but  we 
are  often  constrained  from  "performing  the  doing 
of  it."  It  is  not  freedom  in  doing,  but  freedom  in 
choosing,  to  which  our  consciousness  bears  its 
witness.  The  spirit  of  the  martyr  in  his  dungeon 
or  at  the  stake  is  imperially,  triumphantly  free. 

(II.)  Consciousness  does  not  testify  at  all  con- 
cerning a  predetermined  plan — if  there  be  such — 
of  which  the  consciously  free  choice  is  a  harmon- 
ious and  contributory  part.  Such  an  all-inclusive 
plan  simply  lies  above  or  beyond  the  tract  of  the 
consciousness  of  the  cgo-volens.  Concerning  it, 
then,  consciousness  is  silent,  just  because  it  is  in- 

1  Institutes,  Book  II.,  chap.  iv. 


THE  EMPIRICAL  SURPRISE  91 

cognizant.  It  is  preoccupied  with  the  work  of  in- 
specting the  mental  content  of  the  choosing  self. 
If  the  consideration  of  such  a  plan  has  entered 
into  the  choice  determinatively,  it  is  because  such 
a  great  plan  has  previously  been  contemplated  and 
has  then  coordinated  with  all  the  other  innumer- 
able experiences  and  reflections  which  are,  at  the 
critical  moment  of  the  volition,  cognized  by  the 
consciousness  and  capitalized  in  the  specific 
act  of  self-determination.  In  no  way  more  direct 
than  this  can  such  a  larger  plan  enter  into  the 
particular  choice.  And  the  larger,  the  more 
comprehensive,  the  more  complex  such  a  world- 
plan  is,  the  less  able  is  the  eye  of  consciousness 
to  detect  it  as  an  influential  factor  in  the  mind  of 
the  chooser.  Judas  Iscariot  was  working  out  a 
high  plan  by  his  diabolical  choice,  but  the  plan 
was  far  away  from  his  consciousness  when  he 
chose.  Paul,  at  Athens,  was  working  out  a  plan, 
and,  although  he  doubtless  often  contemplated  it 
without  knowing  very  definitely  what  it  was,  yet 
however  much  the  thought  of  it  entered  as  a  per- 
manent and  controlling  factor  into  his  life,  while 
speaking  on  Mars'  Hill,  his  consciousness  was 
wholly  busied  in  the  inspection  of  the  ceaseless 
flow  of  free  volitions  and  accordant  vocal  actions 
of  which  he  was  then  the  author.     My  little  girl 


92  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

may  refuse  to  come  across  the  room  to  me  until  I 
hold  out  my  watch  for  the  express  purpose  in  my 
mind  of  attracting  her  to  me;  she  is  conscious  of 
choosing  to  come  to  me,  but  my  purpose,  my  plan, 
lies  outside  the  sphere  of  her  consciousness.  A 
man's  consciousness  of  freedom  in  choosing  cives 
no  testimony  whatever  concerning  plans  and  pur- 
poses not  his  own,  which  may  include  his  choos- 
ings  as  necessary  parts.  I  am  saying  nothing 
now  about  metaphysical  necessity,  or  predestina- 
tion, or  overruling  providence;  I  am  only  saying 
that  the  validity  of  the  testimony  of  conscious- 
ness is  fully  safeguarded  if  the  chooser  is  spon- 
taneous, unrestrained,  individually  himself,  in  his 
choice. 

(III.)  Consciousness,  in  witnessing  to  our  free- 
dom in  choosing,  does  not  witness  to  our  power 
to  choose  other  than  we  do  choose  any  more 
than  it  witnesses  to  our  power  to  do  other  than 
we  do  do.  Consciousness  is  the  faculty  of  self- 
knowledge  ;  it  takes  cognizance  of  what  we  do 
and  of  what  we  are.  In  choosing,  the  choice 
which  consciousness  observes  is  the  actual  self  in 
the  concrete  act  of  choosing.  All  of  the  actual 
self  is,  to  the  inspecting  conscious  self  for 
that  microscopic  instant  of  inspection,  a  chooser. 
The  subject-self  sees  the  object-self,  and,  while 


THE  EMPIRICAL  SURPRISE  93 

it  is  the  same  self  withal,  the  self  that  is  seen  is 
wholly  occupied  with  the  business  of  choosing 
which  it  just  then  has  in  hand.  The  self-knowing 
self  does  not  see  a  part  of  the  ego  choosing  and 
another  part  standing  idly  by,  ready  or  able  to 
choose  otherwise.  That  the  will  is  a  "pluri- 
efficient  "  or  an  "  either-causal  "  power  is  certainly 
nothing  more  than  an  inference ;  it  is  not  a  testi- 
mony of  consciousness.  All  it  sees  is  the  actual 
choosing,  and  just  then  there  is  nothing  else  to 
see.  The  power  of  contrary  choice  is,  in  the  very 
nature  of  the  case,  something  which  conscious- 
ness can  know  nothing  about.  Confessedly,  it  is 
only  a  possibility,  but  the  distinguishing  feature 
of  a  possibility  is  this,  that  it  is  not  an  actuality. 
To  the  noun  "possibility"  the  adjective  mere  is 
tautological.  Consciousness  is  blind  and  dumb 
concerning  undeveloped  potentialities.  I  know  I 
have  power  by  exercising  it.  A  man  awakes  in 
the  morning  and  is  "  conscious "  of  strength  in 
his  arms ;  but  when  he  tries  to  lift  them,  he  finds 
his  right  arm  is  paralyzed.  His  supposed  con- 
sciousness of  strength  was  an  inference  from  the 
fact  that  he  had  his  strength  yesterday.  The 
shaven  Samson,  when  he  awoke  out  of  his 
sleep,  "wist  not"  that  his  strength  was  gone.1 
1  See  Judges  16  :  20. 


94  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

He  became  really  conscious  of  his  strength — or 
of  his  lack  of  it — when  he  essayed  to  use  it.  A 
possibility  dies  as  such  the  moment  it  becomes 
actual,  but  until  it  becomes  actual,  consciousness 
cannot  know  it.  A  possible  self,  making  possible 
choices,  is  utterly  foreign  to  the  purview  of  con- 
sciousness. 

5.  This  freedom  which  the  chooser  possesses 
involves  two  things,  namely,  spontaneity  and 
rationality.  The  volition  must  not  only  be  his 
own,  it  must  also  be  rational.  This  last  is  only 
another  way  of  saying  that  only  a  rational  person 
can  make  a  choice.  The  highest  freedom  is  not 
only  in  the  highest  degree  spontaneous,  but  also 
in  the  highest  degree  rational.  We  use  the  term 
rational  here,  in  its  largest  sense,  as  contrasted 
with  unrational,  not  contrasted  with  irrational. 
From  the  standpoint  of  ideal  freedom,  an  un- 
rational volition  is  no  more  possible  than  a 
coerced  or  unspontaneous  one.  Julius  Miiller 
says,  "  Our  conception  indeed  of  human  and  divine 
freedom  would  be  a  mere  mockery,  if  it  meant 
nothing  more  than  the  power  of  realizing  what  is 
already  necessarily  involved  in  the  very  constitu- 
tion of  the  being  in  whom  it  is."  x  We  are  apt  to 
put   our   emphasis    upon   the   element   of   spon- 

1  On  the  Christian  Doctrine  of  Sin,  vol.  i.,  p.  20. 


THE  EMPIRICAL  SURPRISE  95 

taneity,  rather  than  of  rationality.  This  accounts 
for  the  modern  tendency  of  liberty  to  degenerate 
into  license,  and  action  into  impulse.  The  high- 
est freedom  is  realized  only  in  a  spontaneous  con- 
formity to  the  standards  of  Right  Reason. 

"  But  God  left  free  the  will  ;  for  what  obeys 
Reason,  is  free ;  and  reason  he  made  right, 
But  bid  her  well  beware,  and  still  erect."1 

In  this  sense  God  alone,  who  is  infinitely 
rational,  is  infinitely  free.  A  brute  cannot  be 
said  to  be  really  free  because  his  volition  (if  we 
may  now  call  it  such),  though  spontaneous,  is  not 
rational ;  for  the  same  reason  the  lunatic  and  the 
idiot  are  not  free.  They  are  the  slaves  of  im- 
pulse ;  spontaneity  is  uncurbed  by  reason.  A 
vicious  man  is  mistaken  in  thinking  himself,  in 
the  truest  sense,  free ;  his  will  is  enslaved,  that  is 
to  say,  he  himself  is  enslaved  in  the  most  degrad- 
ing slavery  of  all. 

"  All  spirits  are  enslaved  which  serve  things  evil."  2 

This  is  the  delusive  freedom  which  is  possessed 
by  the  man  whose  habits  hold  him  fast  and  help- 
less. This  is  what  Augustine  and  Calvin  mean 
when  they  speak  of  mankind  having  by  the  Fall 
lost  the  freedom  of  the  will ;  and  certainly,  it  will 

1  Paradise  Lost,  Book  IX.  "  Shelley's  Prometheus  Unbound. 


96  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

not  be  denied  except  by  the  outright  Pelagian  that, 
in  a  very  real  sense,  a  moral  agent,  untouched  by 
sin  as  the  unfallen  Adam  was,  or  wholly  delivered 
from  sin  as  the  glorified  saint  in  heaven  is  to  be, 
has  a  range  of  freedom,  a  capacity  for  choosing, 
a  power  of  spontaneous  conformity  to  the  rational 
and  the  right  which  men,  in  their  present  sinful 
state,  do  not  enjoy. 

6.  Sin,  formally  defined,  is  noncompliance  with 
the  divine  will.  Disregarding  all  attempts  at 
material  definitions  at  this  time,  Dr.  Charles 
Hodge  has  summarily  stated  the  truth  when  he 
said,  "  Herein  is  sin  that  we  are  not  like  God."  l 
The  biblical  account  of  the  Fall  represents  the 
first  sin  as  being  an  overt  act  of  disobedience,  and 
this  essential  meaning  is  accepted  by  those  who 
regard  the  narrative  as  historical,  legendary,  or 
mythical.2  Indeed,  Professor  Orr  is  willing  to 
stake  the  Bible  doctrine  of  sin  upon  the  known 
nature  of  it,  even  apart  from  the  Genesis  account 
of  its  origin.  These  are  his  words :  "  It  would  be 
truer  to  say  that  I  believe  in  the  third  chapter  of 
Genesis,  or  in  the  essential  truth  which  it  contains, 
because  I  believe  in  sin  and  redemption,  than  to 
say  that  I  believe  in  sin  and  redemption  because 

1  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  ii.,  p.  1S7. 

1  See  E.  Griffith- Jones's  The  Ascent  Through  Christ,  pp.  96,  97. 


THE  EMPIRICAL  SURPRISE  97 

of  the  story  of  the  Fall.  Put  the  third  chapter  of 
Genesis  out  of  view,  and  you  have  the  facts  of 
sin  and  disorder  of  the  world  to  be  accounted 
for,  and  to  be  dealt  with,  all  the  same."1 
Primarily,  then,  when  looked  at  in  the  light  of 
its  first  appearance  in  history,  sin  pertains  to  the 
will ;  that  is,  to  man  in  the  attitude  of  choosing. 
A  positive,  specific  prohibition,  precisely  such  as 
the  inspired  narrative  presents,2  accentuates  this 
volitional  and  indeed  the  voluntary  character  of 
the  first  sin.  In  its  foremost  aspect,  the  first  sin 
was  neither  rationalistic  nor  mystical,  but  thele- 
matic.  We  believe  that  President  Edwards's  views 
are  as  applicable  to  that  initial  sin  as  to  sins  of  sin- 
ful men  when  he  says,  "  The  Will  itself,  and  not 
those  actions  which  are  the  effects  of  the  Will,  is 
the  proper  object  of  precept  or  command  "  ;  and, 
again,  in  the  same  paragraph,  "  Obedience,  in  the 
primary  nature  of  it,  is  the  submitting  and  yield- 
ing of  the  Will  of  one  to  the  Will  of  another."3 

1  The  Christian  Vierv  of  God  and  (he  IVorld,  p.  212. 

2  Genesis  2:17. 

3  Freedom  of  the  Will,  Part  III.,  sec.  iv.     Carter's  ed.  of  his 
works,  vol.  ii.,  p.  99- 

The  reader  may  recall  Satan's  eternal  obstinacy  of  will : — 
"  What  though  the  field  be  lost  ? 
All  is  not  lost ;  the  unconquerable  will, 
And  study  of  revenge,  immortal  hate, 
7 


98  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

Remember,  we  cannot  thrust  the  thinnest  knife 
blade  between  the  will  and  the  intellect, — it  is  the 
one  man  all  the  while ;  but  the  first  human  sinner 
stands  on  record,  prima  facie,  as  the  chooser. 
We  do  not  mean  to  say  that  the  will  is  not  always 
in  the  forefront  of  sinning;  we  do  recall  the  peti- 
tion in  the  Lord's  Prayer,  "  Thy  will  be  done  in 
earth,"  and  we  know  that  in  that  supreme  moment 
in  Gethsemane  the  victory  came  when  the  resist- 
ing will  surrendered  in  the  cry,  "  Not  my  will, 
but  thine,  be  done."  The  first  sinner  was  a  man 
choosing.  God's  command  was  clear;  he  chose 
to  disobey.  The  commandment  of  God  is  always 
"holy  and  just  and  good."  He  is  the  infinitely 
rational  Person,  and  His  injunctions  are  infinitely 
reasonable.  To  disobey  them,  to  ignore  God's 
law,  to  refuse  conformity  to  His  will,  is  always  to 
depart  from  the  path  of  reason — that  is  to  say,  it 
is  contrary  to  reason.  While  the  chooser  is  a 
rational  agent,  his  choice  is  irrational  just  as  it  is 
true  to  say  that  while  he  is  moral,  his  choice  may 
be  immoral.1 

And  courage  never  to  submit  or  yield, 
And  what  is  else  not  to  be  overcome  ; 
That  glory  never  shall  his  wrath  or  might 
Extort  from  me." — Paradise  Lost,  Book  I. 
1  See  Dr.  James  Kidd's  Morality  ami  Religion,  p.  2  ct  sea.,  on 
this  paradox. 


THE  EMPIRICAL  SURPRISE 


99 


7.  The  power  to  choose  at  all,  involved  in  that 
first  instance,  the  power  to  make  the  wrong 
choice.  Personal  righteousness  has  for  its  nec- 
essary foil,  not  sin,  but  the  possibility  of  sinning. 
If  the  alternative  presented  to  the  first  chooser 
was  purely  fictitious,  then  the  whole  affair  was  a 
farce  and  the  self-deluded  chooser  was  a  mere 
automaton.  This  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  doc- 
trine of  the  power  of  contrary  choice  among  con- 
genially sinful  choosers.  That  doctrine  is  that, 
after  we  have  made  a  certain  choice,  we  can  recall 
the  moment  of  that  choice,  and  affirm  assuredly 
that,  instead  of  choosing  as  we  did  choose, 
we  could  have  chosen  contrarily  to  that  actual 
choice.  This  is,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  always 
and  necessarily  an  ex  post  facto  verdict;  the 
choice  which  has  been  made  is  a  datum  in  the 
doctrine.  What  we  are  now  saying  is  that,  before 
that  initial  wrong  human  choice  was  made,  while 
as  yet  either  decision  was  unformed,  there  was  in 
the  anticipation  of  the  chooser  a  bona  fide  possi- 
bility of  choosing  either  the  right  way  or  the 
wrong  way.  Indeed,  without  such  an  alternative 
there  could  be  no  right  way  or  wrong  way.  This 
is  essential  to  any  moral  choice.  This  is  not  con- 
tingency as  to  the  fact ;  it  is  capacity  for  going 
one  way,  and  that  way  may  be  the  immoral,  the 


ioo  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

irrational  way.     A  right  moral  choice  carried  with 
it  the  possibility  of  a  wrong  one. 

"  I  made  him  just  and  right, 
Sufficient  to  have  stood,  though  free  to  fall. 
Such  I  created  all  the  ethereal  powers 
And  spirits,  both  them  who  stood,  and  them  who  failed ; 
Freely  they  stood  who  stood,  and  fell  who  fell."  * 

That  this  is  perfectly  safe  teaching  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  Reformed  theology  will  need 
no  proof.2  It  is  almost  self-evident  that  if  God  is 
to  create  a  being  capable  of  obeying,  that  being 
must  be  capable  of  disobeying ;  the  condition  of 
his  being  morally  good  is  that  he  may  be  morally 
bad.  "And  one  of  the  impossibilities  is,  having 
made  man  free,  to  compel  him  to  act  as  if  he  were 
necessitated."3 

8.  The  constitution  of  the  human  race  is  that 
of  an  organic  unity,  not  of  an  aggregation  of  indi- 
viduals. This  is  one  of  the  boasted  finds  of 
which  modern  science  makes  so  much ;  but,  all 
the  same,  it  is  a  venerable  and  important  truth  in 
the    Reformed   theology.      Dr.  John  Watson   is 

1  Paradise  Lost,  Book  III. 

2  See,  for  example,  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  chap,  ix., 
sec.  2,  and  The  Larger  Catechism,  Ques.  17. 

3  Principal  Fairbairn's  The  Place  of  Christ  in  Modern  Theology, 
p.  456. 


THE  EMPIRICAL  SURPRISE  101 

altogether  too  sweeping  in  his  remark  that  "  no 
single  doctrine  of  theology,  with  the  doubtful 
exception  of  original  sin,  has  till  recently  been 
applied  to  the  race." 1  The  Reformed  faith,  fol- 
lowing the  teachings  of  the  great  apostle  in  his 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  has  always  made  much 
of  the  Adamic  sin  and  guilt ;  and,  although  it  may 
be  quite  true  that  recent  thought  has  brought 
more  prominently  to  the  fore  this  idea  of  the 
racial  unity  as  related  to  the  redemptive  work  of 
Christ,  yet  it  must  be  said  that  here  also  a  scrip- 
tural theology  has  always  regarded  the  individual 
in  the  light  of  the  whole  race,  of  which  he  is  but 
an  organic  part.  The  organic  oneness  of  human- 
ity, the  solidarity  of  the  race,  the  scientific  doc- 
trine of  heredity,  are  precisely  in  line  with  the 
Reformed  theology  both  as  to  sin  and  as  to 
redemption.  The  occasion  to  remind  ourselves 
of  this  principle  just  now  is  in  the  fact  that  that 
first  choice,  introducing  sin  into  the  human  race, 
accounts  for  the  universal  presence  and  blight  of 
sin  in  the  racial  unit  ever  since. 

9.  In  virtue  of  man's  organic  relations  with  the 
cosmos,  the  extra-mental  world  came  under  the 
threatened  blight  of  human  sinful    disobedience. 

1  We  cannot  just  now  locate  this  remark  either  in  The  Mind 
of  the  Master  or  in  The  Cure  of  Souls. 


io2  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

This  was  partly  natural  and  partly  judicial,  if  we 
may  adhere  to  a  very  precarious  distinction.  Man 
sinning  is  man  abnormal,  and  abnormal  man  makes 
his  environment  abnormal ;  but  man's  environ- 
ment is  the  whole  cosmos.  Sin  brought  a  sense 
of  shame  before  the  penalty  was  spoken ;  the 
woman  is  consigned  to  the  sorrows  of  maternity 
and  the  very  ground  is  cursed  for  the  sake  of  the 
man.1  The  blight  is  abroad;  the  cosmos  is  a 
unit ;  the  blood  poison  has  made  its  way  into  the 
veins ;  the  whole  system  is  vitiated. 

It  would  be  hard  to  conceive  of  man,  as  sinful, 
dwelling  in  a  world  unspoiled  by  his  sin.  Mr. 
Spencer  regards  a  perfect  man  in  an  imperfect 
environment  as  impossible;  we  should  say  that 
equally  impossible  is  an  imperfect  man  in  a  perfect 
environment.  His  own  perceiving  self  is  impaired 
and,  of  necessity,  the  world  otherwise  unchanged 
would  be  to  him,  at  least,  a  changed  world.  Kant 
tells  us  that  if  all  men  see  the  world  through 
green  goggles,  then  to  all  men  the  world  is  green ; 
so  if  all  men  know  the  world  by  means  of  im- 
paired faculties,  then  to  all  men  it  is  an  impaired, 
a  disordered  world.  But  the  curse  is  greater  than 
that.  Man  is  the  microcosm,  the  climax  of  the 
creation ;    he  is  the  ruling  head,  with  dominion 

1  Genesis  3:8,  16,  17. 


THE  EMPIRICAL  SURPRISE  103 

over  the  creatures.  The  microcosm  is  stricken 
with  a  deadly  disease  and  the  macrocosm  is 
thrown  into  great  disorder ;  the  ruler's  throne  is 
undermined  and  the  subject  empire  is  thrown  into 
disaster  and  ruin.  The  rational  order  is  dis- 
turbed; the  moral  order  is  perverted. 

This  idea  of  the  cosmical  effects  of  sin  is  far- 
reaching  and  thoroughly  scriptural.  We  are 
idealists  enough  to  believe  that  matter  is  for  mind, 
and  not  mind  for  matter;  if,  then,  the  soul  be 
under  the  curse,  how  much  more  must  be  ac- 
cursed that  which  is  the  servant  of  the  soul? 
Our  bodies  are  under  the  blight,  and  our  bodies 
are  to  be  redeemed  from  that  blight.  But,  in  a 
real  sense,  it  is  true  that  the  whole  cosmos  is  our 
body,  our  aajfia ;  and  it  is  this  larger  body  which 
is  blighted  and  which  is  to  be  delivered.  Sin 
covers  the  whole  creation  with  its  pall,  and  re- 
demption is  to  be  equally  comprehensive.  It  is 
because  "the  whole  creation  groaneth  and  trav- 
aileth  in  pain  together  until  now,"  that  we  are 
given  to  hope  that  in  the  consummations  of 
redemption  there  will  be  "  new  heavens  and  a 
new  earth,  wherein  dwelleth  righteousness." ' 

10.  We  are  now  brought  out  to  a  point  whence 
we  can  see  how  it  is  that  the  world  in  which  we 
1  See  Romans  8  :  22 ;  and  2  Peter  3  :  13. 


104  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

live  is  not  the  ideally  rational  and  moral  one. 
"An  enemy  hath  done  this."  Tertullian  called 
sin  "  the  great  interloper."  Man  alone  of  all  ter- 
restrial creatures  was  endowed  by  his  Creator  with 
capacity  to  comply  with  and  to  enjoy  divine  con- 
ditions ;  but  the  necessary  counterpart  of  this 
unique  capacity  was  his  ability  to  disobey  God 
and  forfeit  his  birthright.  This  last  he  chose  to 
do,  and  then  entered  the  dark  and  disastrous 
train.  Why  he  did  so  choose,  is  the  mystery. 
Whence  came  the  initial  impulse,  is  the  mystery. 
We  have  by  no  means  assumed  to  solve  that 
mystery;  we  have  essayed  only  to  ferret  it  out 
and  state  it.  Mr.  Browning  thinks  that  "the 
acknowledgment  of  God  in  Christ  solves  all 
questions  in  the  world  and  out  of  it " ;  we  believe 
that  it  is  equally  true  that  the  full  acknowledg- 
ment of  sin  carries  with  it  nearly  if  not  quite  all 
the  dark  mysteries  in  the  world  and  out  of  it. 

We  are  inclined  to  accept  it  as  a  finality  that  no 
rational  explanation  of  the  mystery  of  sin  is  ever 
forthcoming.  It  is  impossible  to  formulate  a 
rationale  of  that  which,  in  its  inmost  self,  is  essen- 
tially irrational.  Dr.  Muller's  words  are  very 
much  to  the  point :  "  We  must  acknowledge  that 
evil  is  in  its  nature  inconceivable — i.  e.,  incompre- 
hensible— seeing  that  it  is  realized  by  arbitrariness 


THE  EMPIRICAL  SURPRISE  105 

and  arbitrariness  is  a  violation  of  rational  reason 
and  true  sequence.  It  is  that  which  has  being 
only  by  usurpation,  and  in  the  face  of  the  exclusive 
claims  of  moral  good.  We  can  understand  the 
connection  of  its  particular  manifestation  with  its 
principle,  but  this  principle  itself  is  a  perversion,  it 
is  that  which  ought  not  to  be."  1 

A  few  years  ago,  an  educated  and  godly  minis- 
ter of  the  gospel,  in  his  happy  home,  surrounded 
by  his  beloved  and  lovely  family,  stole  out  one 
beautiful  Sabbath  morning  and,  at  the  very 
moment  when  the  whole  household  was  expect- 
ing to  start  to  the  house  of  worship,  instan- 
taneously took  his  own  life.  The  dreadful  shock 
that  startled  the  whole  community  was  followed 
by  a  general  discussion  of  the  reason  which  led 
to  this  rash  act.  It  was  suggested  that  his  means 
were  exhausted  and  that  anxiety  for  his  family 
drove  him  mad ;  but  it  was  found  that  several 
hundred  dollars  lay  to  his  credit  in  the  bank.  It 
was  surmised  that  personal  alienations  had  made 
him  morbid ;  but  it  was  found  that  all  serious  dif- 
ferences with  his  neighbors  had  been  reconciled. 
No  reason  was  ever  found,  and  we  believe  that 
no  reason  ever  could  be  found,  simply  because 
no  reason  ever  existed.     It  was  an  irrational  act; 

1  On  the  Christian  Doctrine  of  Sin,  vol  ii.,  p.  173. 


106  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

and  there  is  no  reasonable  explanation  of  that 
which  is  without  reason.1 

To  be  sure,  psychologists  might  account  for 
that  suicide ;  but  let  us  not  forget  that  psychology- 
is  purely  a  descriptive  science,  nothing  more.  It 
is,  as  Coleridge  has  so  clearly  told  us,  one  thing 
to  state  a  reason  which  accounts  for  a  fact,  and 
another  thing  to  state  a  reason  which  explains  it.2 
Psychology  may  explain  descriptively,  but  it  is  far 
beyond  its  province  to  justify  rationally.  It  may 
trace  connections  where  it  cannot  find  reasons. 

Sin  belongs  to  the  dismal  chapter  on  pathology 
in  the  spiritual  history  of  mankind.  Every 
attempt  to  vindicate  it  has  ended  in  losing  more 
than  it  has  gained.  Its  fountains  are  hidden,  but 
its  scorching  streams,  unlike  those  of  the  fertiliz- 
ing Nile,  go  forth  to  blight  every  soil  they  touch. 
Its  origin  is  the  point  du  depart  of  man  from  God. 
It  has  ever  baffled  the  reason,  because  it  is  itself 
preeminently  unreasonable.  Sin  is  violence  to 
highest  reason;  the  sinner  is  beside  himself,  and 
his  first  look  homeward,  like  that  of  the  Prodigal 


1  No  stronger  illustration  is  possible  than  that  afforded  in  the 
recent  reasonless  assassination  of  President  McKinley. 

2  In  Appendix  C  to  Aids  to  Reflection,  he  says,  "  To  account  for 
Life  is  one  thing  ;  to  explain  Life  another."  So,  to  account  for 
sin  is  not  to  explain  it. 


THE  EMPIRICAL  SURPRISE  107 

in  the  parable,  dates  from  the  moment  when  he 
begins  to  "  come  to  himself." 

It  has  put  to  confusion  all  right-minded  rational 
and  moral  world-builders,  because,  itself  irrational, 
itself  immoral,  the  very  best  that  could  be  said 
for  it  is  that  it  is  an  impertinence,  a  usurpation, 
an  arbitrariness,  an  intruder,  that  which  ought 
?iot  to  be. 


LECTURE    IV 

ETHICAL  VERSIONS   OF  THE 
COSMOS 


LECTURE  IV 

ETHICAL  VERSIONS  OF  THE  COSMOS 

It  is  quite  evident  that  the  academic  world- 
builder  is  doomed  to  disappointment  as  soon  as 
he  strolls  out,  with  eyes  and  ears  open,  into  the 
world  of  actual  fact.  Few  of  us  would  say  that 
the  world  we  live  in  is  precisely  such  a  world  as 
we  should  have  made.  It  is  aside  from  the  point 
to  remark  that  we  could  not  have  made  a  better ; 
it  is  enough  if  we  could  only  conceive  a  bet- 
ter; for  then,  given  omnipotence,  might  we  not, 
,  forsooth,  have  brought  it  forth  ?  Pippa's  senti- 
ment is  optimistic  in  the  extreme ;  but,  with  the 
Leibnitzs  and  Schopenhauers  on  the  other  side, 
there  are  many  who  stoutly  maintain  that,  as  far 
as  it  can  be  so,  "  all's  well  with  the  world."  In 
the  interest  of  a  sound  theodicy  it  is  generally 
understood  in  Christian  thinking,  on  moral 
grounds,  that  whatever  is  wrong  with  the  world 
is  the  fault  of  the  world  itself,  and  not  of  its 
Creator. 

The  anonymous  writer  of   a  very  suggestive 


112  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

book,  Evil mid  Evolution}  names  three  hypotheses 
concerning  the  "maladjustments  of  the  actual 
world,"  and  adds  that  he  can  see  no  place  for  a 
fourth.  In  substance,  these  are:  I.  They  are  a 
part  and  parcel  of  God's  scheme ;  2.  They  are 
undesigned  and  unavoidable  faults,  incidental  to 
the  scheme ;  3.  An  enemy  has  disturbed  the 
originally  perfect  adjustment.  He  takes  the  last 
one.  We  are  disposed  to  say,  though  just  now 
no  more  than  to  say,  that  these  three  alternatives 
are  not  necessarily  mutually  exclusive,  and  that  a 
synthesis  of  the  first  and  third,  with  all  the  diffi- 
culties which  it  may  involve,  is  the  nearest  ap- 
proach to  the  truth ;  that  is  to  say,  we  believe 
that  what  is  to  us  the  "  Empirical  Surprise  "  is 
not  a  surprise  to  the  Creator  of  the  world,  though 
it  still  is  literally  true  that  "  an  enemy  hath  done 
this." 

Natural  science  has  for  its  noble  task  the  exe- 
gesis of  the  cosmos.  Its  text  is  in  its  hand,  and 
its  business  is  to  read  it.  There  is  a  good  deal 
of  preliminary  work  for  the  historical  and  the 
higher  critics,  but  this  work  is  here,  as  everywhere 
else,  purely  preliminary.  The  ipsissima  verba  are 
in  the  air  and  earth  and  sea,  the  stars  and  rocks 
and  fishes.     The  scientist  may  know  that  his  tcxta 

1  Macmillan  ;  third  edition.     See  p.  58. 


ETHICAL  VERSIONS  OF  THE  COSMOS      113 

recepta  is  corrupt,  that  the  pure  original  is  lost ; 
still  this  is  the  best  that  he  can  get  at,  and  he 
properly  accepts  the  revelation-content  of  the  cos- 
mos of  to-day  as  the  legitimate  basis  of  scien- 
tific study.  He  may  infer  from  the  corrupt  cos- 
mical  text  in  his  hand  what  was  the  original  prod- 
uct of  the  creative  hand.  The  rules  of  cosmical 
hermeneutics  are  as  important  as  those  of  biblical 
study.  Given  the  text,  what  does  it  mean  ?  The 
results  of  world-exegesis  have  been  as  varied  as 
those  of  Bible  study.  Science  has  shifted  its 
ground  as  often  and  as  widely  as  theology  has 
done.  Bishop  Hugh  Miller  Thompson  puts  it 
none  too  strongly  when  he  says,  "  When  one  con- 
siders the  theories  that  have  perished  in  chemistry, 
until  the  new  chemistry,  with  the  hypothesis  of 
unitary  structure,  has  seated  itself  amid  the  ruins 
of  the  old ;  in  geology,  from  the  theories  of  the 
Plutonists  and  Neptunists  to  the  evolutionary; 
.  .  .  .  in  biology,  the  corpuscular,  the  fluid, 
the  chemical  theories,  and  now  the  contending 
material  and  psychical;  the  emission  and  undula- 
tory  theories  of  light,  the  vortices  of  Descartes, 
and  the  attraction  of  Newton ;  the  Ptolemaic 
cycles  and  epicycles,  orb  in  orb,  and  the  Coperni- 
can  central  sun  in  astronomy ;  the  phlogistic, 
caloric,  and  molecular  theories  of  heat ;  in  view,  in 
3 


U4  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

short,  of  explanatory  theories  painfully  wrought 
out,  painfully  defended,  universally  accepted  as 
sufficient,  and  universally  exploded  at  last,  he  is  a 
very  rash  man  who  will  dare  to  assert  that  any 
existing  theory  is  a  finality."  '  It  is  not  too  much 
to  say  that  with  the  postulates  and  hypotheses 
and  "  working  theories  "  of  natural  science,  the 
certitudes  of  which  it  boasts  so  much,  have  up  to 
date  shown  themselves  to  be  as  precarious  as  the 
most  dogmatic  deliverances  of  Christian  theology 
have  been. 

Students  in  theology  must  not  be  surprised  to 
find  themselves  written  down  as  imbeciles  in 
natural  science ;  their  passports  into  the  esoteric 
circles  of  cosmical  exegetes  will  be  fiercely  chal- 
lenged. But  the  challenge  must  be  resisted. 
There  is  no  conflict  between  natural  science  and 
sacred  theology.  We  insist,  with  Professor 
Knight,  that  "  the  reverent  scientist  is  a  theolog- 
ical student,"  and  that  the  true  theologian  is  a 
scientific  student.  It  is  nonsense  to  talk  about  a 
truce,  for  there  is  no  war.  The  trouble  with  the 
scientist  is  that  he  is  prone  to  deny  the  whole 
subject-matter  of  Christian  theology.  His  field  is 
only   a   part  of  the   theologian's.      He   has   the 

1  The  World  and  the  Logos:  The  Bedell  Lectures  for  1S85, 
pp.  11,  12. 


ETHICAL  VERSIONS  OF  THE  COSMOS      115 

cosmos ;  we  have  the  theo-cosmos.  Our  area  is 
vastly  broader  than  his  and  includes  his.  We  are 
willing  to  let  him  do  his  work  in  his  chosen  field, 
but  he  must  not  suppose  that  his  corner  is  the 
whole.  We  are  coworkers.  We  need  him ;  we 
must  have  him,  and  he  only  narrows  his  work  and 
his  thought  if  he  imagines  he  does  not  need  us. 

We  may  not  be  experts  in  cosmical  study,  but 
we  claim  the  common  sense  of  a  competent  jury- 
man. We  may  be  awkward  with  the  telescope 
and  the  scalpel,  but  we  have  brains  enough  to 
understand  what  others  may  tell  us  after  they  have 
used  them.  Probably  we  know  as  much  about 
generation  as  they  do  about  regeneration,  and 
about  the  conditions  of  a  sound  physical  life  as 
they  about  the  conditions  of  a  healthy  moral  life. 
All  we  ask  for  is  a  mutual  recognition  of  status 
— nothing  more.  There  is  too  much  to  be  known 
for  any  one  of  us  to  know  it  all.  There  must  be 
division  of  labor.  Ours  is  an  age  of  specialism. 
The  natural  scientist  is  a  specialist,  but  that  need 
not  disqualify  him  for  good  theological  thinking. 
The  theologian  is  a  specialist  in  his  line,  indeed  he 
is  not  much  of  a  theologian  if  he  be  not  a  special- 
ist, but  his  specialty  need  not  deprive  him  of  all 
fitness  for  having  convictions  concerning  the 
cosmos.     We  know   no   pope   in   either   sphere. 


Ii6  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

Authority  has  its  place,  but  it  is  only  such  a  place 
as  an  enlightened  reason  will  cheerfully  accord. 
Theology  has  had  its  sins,  but  theology  has  not 
been  the  only  sinner.  Mutual  suspicions  and 
jealousies  are  obstacles  in  the  way  of  the  attain- 
ment of  truth.  If  we  can  only  bear  in  mind  that 
all  truth  is  one  ;  that,  so  far  as  it  goes,  the  exist- 
ing cosmos  is  a  part  of  the  text  of  the  word  of 
God,  and  to  read  it  is  the  task  which  cosmical 
science  has  set  for  itself,  then  eveiy  movement  in 
the  whole  field  will  be  centripetal  and  every  ad- 
vance will  be  toward  the  common  goal.  Professor 
Le  Conte  is  most  enthusiastic  in  his  devotion  to 
natural  science,  and  his  words  are  well  spoken  on 
this  point :  "  Many  seem  to  think  that  theology 
has  a  'preemptive  rig/it'  to  dogmatism.  If  so, 
then  modern  materialistic  science  has  'jumped  the 
claim'  Dogmatism  has  its  roots  deep-bedded  in 
the  human  heart.  It  showed  itself  first  in  the 
domain  of  theology,  because  there  was  the  seat 
of  power.  In  modern  times  it  has  gone  over  to 
the  side  of  science,  because  here  now  is  the  place 
of  power  and  fashion.  There  are  two  dogmatisms, 
both  equally  opposed  to  the  true  rational  spirit, 
viz.,  the  old  theological  and  the  new  scientific." 1 

1  Evolution  and  its  Relation  to  Religious  Thought,  pp.  293-4. 
Italics  his. 


ETHICAL  VERSIONS  OF  THE  COSMOS      117 

In  aiming  at  a  just  ethical  estimate  of  the  cos- 
mos, two  methods  have  been  followed.  The  one 
posits  the  cosmical  and  regards  the  so-called 
ethical  as  but  the  incident  or  product  of  the  all- 
comprehending  cosmical  programme.  Its  only- 
category  is  the  cosmical.  The  other  method 
posits  the  ethical  and  regards  the  so-called  cos- 
mical as  the  incident  or  the  evolution  of  that  all- 
embracing  ethical  plan.  Its  only  category  is  that 
of  moral  value.  They  proceed  in  exactly  oppo- 
site directions ;  the  one  reads  everything  ethical 
in  terms  of  the  natural,  and  the  other  reads  every- 
thing natural  in  terms  of  the  ethical.  The  one 
regards  all  moral  forces,  functions,  achievements, 
and  ideals,  as  merely  cosmical ;  this  is  natural- 
istic empiricism.  The  other  regards  all  cosmical 
forces,  phenomena,  and  products,  as  susceptible 
of  a  moral  interpretation ;  this  is  theological 
idealism.  Neither  admits  any  neutral  ground. 
They  agree  in  having  their  preconceptions, 
although  their  preconceptions  are  widely  differ- 
ent. These  preconceptions  fix  the  theory.  I 
can  think  of  no  better  or  more  classical  expo- 
nents of  these  two  methods  in  recent  times  than 
Mr.  John  Fiske,  representing  the  former,  and  the 
late  Professor  Henry  Drummond,  representing 
the  latter. 


n8  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

Mr.  Fiske,  in  his  Outlines  of  the  Cosmic  PJii- 
losopJiy,  begins  by  attempting  to  strip  his  mind 
absolutely  of  all  ethical  presuppositions,  and  then 
he  addresses  himself  to  the  exposition  of  the 
cosmos  as  he  finds  it.  Taking  his  cue  from  his 
great  English  master,  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  he 
finds  only  the  manifestation  of  Force  every- 
where throughout  the  cosmos.  The  term  "  Cos- 
mos "  "denotes  the  entire  phenomenal  universe; 
it  connotes  the  orderly  uniformity  of  nature,  and 
the  negation  of  miracle  or  extraneous  disturbance 
of  any  kind."1  The  only  cause  that  can  be 
known  is  the  Phenomenal  Cause,  and  Efficient 
Causes  are  explicitly  repudiated ; 2  the  bedrock 
presupposition  of  Cosmical  Science  is  the  Persis- 
tence of  Force,  the  proof  of  which  is  not  logical, 
but  purely  psychological.3 

Assuredly,  this  cosmism  is  not  overloaded  with 
presuppositions ;  particularly,  with  ethical  ones. 
Whether  or  not  it  is  theistic,  it  is  not  hyper-theo- 
logical. Mr.  Fiske  tells  us  that  the  word  Theism 
ordinarily  "  connotes  the  ascription  of  an 
anthropomorphic  [sic]  personality  to  the  Deity." 4 
We  must  not  ascribe  intelligence  or  volition  to 
God,  for  that  would  be  to  anthropomorphize  our 

1  Vol.  i.,  p.  182.  2  Ibid.,  vol.  i.,  p.  154. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  i.,  p.  286.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  424. 


ETHICAL  VERSIONS  OF  THE  COSMOS      119 

idea  of  Him;  and  yet  he  is  honest — though 
inconsistent — enough  to  admit  that  "  there  is 
anthropomorphism  even  in  speaking  of  the 
Unknown  Cause  as  a  Power  manifested  in 
phenomena."  '  The  scientific  saint  must  dismiss 
Christ  as  an  "anthropomorphic  symbol,"  and 
take  for  his  motto  Goethe's  familiar  line, 

"  Im  Ganzen,  Guten,  Wahren,  resolut  zu  leben."  2 

Is  it  not  strange  that,  after  this  process  of 
denuding  the  cosmos,  which  is  the  All,  has  been 
carried  to  the  very  last  degree,  and  while  we 
stand,  dumb  with  awe,  in  the  presence  of  the 
bare  cosmic  Force,  in  paris  naturalibus,  the 
cosmic  philosopher  should  turn  and  assure  us 
that  "  Nearer,  my  God,  to  Thee,"  is  the  devout 
prayer  to  which  scientific  analysis  will  add  new 
meanings,  and  that,  in  spite  of  everything,  "  we 
still  regard  Christianity  as,  in  the  deepest  sense, 
our  own  religion"?3  Surely  this  is  the  zero- 
point  of  cosmism,  bereft  of  the  ethical,  and  such 
assurances  as  that  just  mentioned  may  prepare 
us  for  his  beautiful  little  essays  which  were  pub- 
lished years  later. 

If  now,  on  the  other  hand,  we  turn  to  Professor 

1  Outlines  of  the  Cosmic  Philosophy,  vol.  ii. ,  p.  449. 

2  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  455.  3  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  502. 


120  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

Drummond's  The  Ascent  of  Man,  we  get  the  antip- 
odal starting  point.  As  Professor  George  Adam 
Smith  has  pointed  out,  this  book  reverses  the 
argument  of  his  first  and  greater  book,  Natu- 
ral Lazv  in  tJie  Spiritual  World ;  seeing  that  in 
that  book  he  carried  physical  processes  into  the 
region  of  the  moral  and  spiritual ;  whereas,  in  the 
latter,  "  he  essayed  the  converse  task,  and  suc- 
ceeded in  showing  the  ethical  at  work  in  regions 
of  life  generally  supposed  to  be  given  over  to 
purely  physical  laws." 1 

Here  we  have  presuppositions  in  abundance. 
The  writer  is  not  only  a  theist,  he  is  a  fervently 
evangelical  Christian,  an  ordained  minister  in  the 
Free  Church  of  Scotland.2  He  brings  his  own 
rich  religious  faith  to  the  interpretation  of  the  cos- 
mos ;  doubtless  his  eisegesis  affected  his  exegesis. 
He  was  the  kind  of  man  to  get  out  of  the  world, 
in  large  measure,  what  he  put  into  it.  His  stand- 
point was  ethical,  and  so  he  ethicized  the  cos- 
mical  order;  more  than  that,  his  standpoint  was 
Christian,  and  so  he  Christianized  it.  He  saw  the 
unknown  ;  he  percieved  the  shadows ;  and  yet, 
unconsciously  to  himself  doubtless,  his  inborn 
and   inbred    Presbyterian  faith   colored   his   cos- 

1  The  Life  of  Henry  Drummond,  p.  462. 

2  Ibid.,  see  p.  265. 


ETHICAL  VERSIONS  OF  THE  COSMOS      121 

mical  conceptions,  and   he   knew,   with    Lowell, 
that 

"  Behind  the  dim  unknown 
Standeth  God  within  the  shadows,   keeping  watch    above   His 
own." 

Accordingly,  Professor  Drummond  saw  nothing 
in  the  natural  order  which  he  would  not  fain  bring 
under  ethical  categories.  These  are  some  of  his 
words  :  "  The  vicarious  principle  is  shot  through 
and  through  the  whole  vast  web  of  nature;  and 
if  one  actor  has  played  a  mightier  part  than  an- 
other in  the  drama  of  the  past,  it  has  been  self- 
sacrifice  " ; '  "  Men  begin  to  see  an  undeviating 
ethical  purpose  in  this  material  world,  a  tide,  that 
from  eternity  has  never  turned,  making  for  perfect* 
ness";2  "  No  man  can  run  up  the  natural  lines 
of  Evolution  without  coming  to  Christianity  at 
the  top." 3 

Now  the  singularly  interesting  thing  about 
these  two  thoroughly  representative  men  is  that 
starting,  the  one  from  the  deliberately  chosen 
standpoint  of  agnostic  cosmism,  and  the  other 
from  that  of  a  theological  professor  in  the  Free 
Church  College  at  Glasgow,  they  should  come  up 
so  nearly  together  at  the   end.     Mr.   Fiske  has 

1  The  Ascent  of  Matt,  p.  18.  2  Ibid.,  p.  3 

8  Ibid.,  p.  342. 


122  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

made  concessions  again  and  again  in  his  three 
little  books,  The  Idea  of  God,  The  Destiny  of  Man, 
and  Through  Nature  to  God,  until  the  darkest 
lines  of  his  Cosmic  Philosophy  have  almost  wholly- 
faded  out.  In  the  last  of  these  books,  he  freely 
accepts  the  human  element  in  the  symbolic  con- 
ception of  God ; l  he  admits  that  if  we  take  away 
the  ethical  significance  from  our  conceptions  of 
the  unseen  world,  no  significance  remains ; 2  while 
there  are  many  passages  which,  for  ethical  beauty 
and  spiritual  meaning,  might  well  be  found  among 
the  words  of  the  author  of  The  Greatest  Thing  in 
the  World.  Mr.  Fiske  posited  the  bare  cosmical, 
and  has  ever  since  been  advancing  upward  toward 
the  richer  ethical.  Professor  Drummond  posited 
the  ethical,  and  will  it  be  too  much  to  say  that, 
throughout  his  brilliant  but  brief  career,  he  had 
been  making  repeated  concessions  to  the  cosmi- 
cal ?  The  science  of  the  Lowell  Lectures  was  no 
more  acceptable  to  scientific  men  than  was  their 
theology  to  the  theologians.  Not  a  few  who 
loved  the  gifted  and  genial  Drummond,  on  both 
sides  of  the  Atlantic,  wondered  what  place  he  left 
for  the  supernatural  elements  of  the  Christian 
Religion,  what  constituted  the  Atonement  of  Cal- 
vary sui  generis,  and  where,  in  his  "  love-song  of 

1  Through  Nature  to  God,  p.  167.  *  Ibid.,  p.  173. 


ETHICAL  VERSIONS  OF  THE  COSMOS      123 

evolution,"  would  fit  in  the  New  Testament  doc- 
trine of  the  Incarnation.1 

Notably  at  variance  with  these  conclusions, 
however,  is  that  of  the  older  Darwinism,  which 
sees  no  ethical  virtues  whatever  in  nature.  Mr. 
Mill,  who  was  a  Darwinian  before  Darwin,  con- 
demned nature  as  cruel  and  inhuman.  But  the 
classical  utterance  for  this  view  was  the  famous 
Romanes  lecture  for  1893,  by  the  late  Professor 

1  Neither  of  these  two  representative  men  continued  to  please 
the  constituents  with  whom  they  began.  A  friend  has  told  me 
of  a  conversation  he  once  had  with  the  late  Colonel  Ingersoll,  in 
which  the  latter  fiercely  denounced  Mr.  Fiske  as  inconsistent  with 
his  principles,  afraid  to  stand  by  his  position,  and  "truckling" 
to  the  superstitions  of  the  churches.  We  fear  Mr.  Fiske-  must 
plead  guilty  to  the  first  charge ;  a  flix  culpa,  indeed  !  It  will 
be  remembered  that  the  Cos»iic  Philosophy  was  written  in  Mr. 
Fiske's  early  life.  It  was  based  on  lectures  given  as  far  back 
as  1869.  Readers  of  Dr.  Martineau  will  recall  the  remark  of  an 
eminent  English  Positivist  who  had  been  claiming  the  author  of 
the  Cosmic  Philosophy  as  in  agreement  with  himself  in  the  rejec- 
tion of  religious  beliefs.  A  friend  was  reading  him  a  private 
letter  in  which  were  some  extracts  from  Mr.  Fiske's  address  at 
Concord  (1884),  which  afterwards  was  published  as  The  Destiny 
of  Alan  in  the  Light  of  His  Origin,  when,  at  a  certain  interest- 
ing passage,  he  spiritedly  interrupted  him  with  the  exclamation, 
"What?  John  Fiske  say  that?  Well;  it  only  proves,  what  I 
have  always  maintained,  that  you  cannot  make  the  slightest  con- 
cession to  metaphysics,  without  ending  in  a  theology."  See 
Martineau' s  A  Study  of  Religion  ;  preface,  vol.  i.,  p.  vii. 


124  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

Huxley,  on  "  Evolution  and  Ethics." !  In  words 
worn  threadbare  by  frequent  quotation,  he  char- 
acterized nature  as  "  no  school  of  virtue,  but  the 
headquarters  of  the  enemy  of  ethical  nature";2 
and  he  >  declared  that  "  social  progress  means  a 
checking  of  the  cosmic  process  at  every  step  and 
the  substitution  for  it  of  another  which  may  be 
called  the  ethical  process."3 

This  almost  last  utterance  of  Professor  Huxley 
whom,  rather  than  Mr.  Spencer,  if  we  mistake 
not,  Mr.  Darwin  regarded  as  the  true  philosopher 
of  evolution,  created  a  great  sensation  among 
both  theologians  and  natural  scientists,  and  the 
Quarterlies  swarmed  with  reviews  and  criticisms 
of  it.  It  pleased  almost  nobody.  Evolutionists 
repudiated  it,  Mr.  Spencer  most  vigorously  of  all. 
Certainly  its  position  was  much  exposed  to  attack. 
A  monistic  evolutionist  starts  out  with  the  denial 
of  any  real  distinction  between  the  cosmical  and 
the  ethical ;  it  is  all  cosmical.  How  then  can  he 
speak  of  the  substitution  for  the  cosmic  process 
of  "  another "  when  that  other,  even  though  it 
may  be  singled  out  by  itself  and  dignified  by  the 
name  of  ethical,  is  its  own  child  or,  rather,  only  a 
part  of  itself?     Can  he  call  a  part  of  the  cosmical 

1  Huxley's  Works,  Appleton's  ed.,  vol.  ix.,  pp.  46-86. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  75.  s  Ibid.,  p.  81  et  alia. 


ETHICAL  VERSIONS  OF  THE  COSMOS      125 

course  "  another  "  ?  To  cosmical  scientists  who 
make  the  cosmos  the  ALL,  and  following  nature 
— iiaturam  prosequi — the  summing  up  of  the  moral 
law,  this  condemnation  of  the  "  cosmic  process  " 
before  the  bar  of  morals  was  exceedingly  dis- 
concerting. 

But  what  objection  had  the  theologian  to  the 
argument  of  the  lecture?  A  reviewer  in  the 
Athcnaum  called  it  an  approximation  to  the 
Pauline  dogma  of  "  nature  and  grace " ; l  cer- 
tainly, at  a  hasty  glance,  it  seems  biblical  and 
orthodox,  and  Mr.  Fiske  has  said  that  it  "  carried 
joy  to  the  hearts  of  sundry  theologians." 2  But 
the  thoughtful  theologian  can  ill  afford  to  con- 
demn the  cosmos  utterly  before  ethical  tribunals ; 
else  what  becomes  of  his  natural  theology  ?  Else 
deism  must  be  called  back,  and  while  the  Living 
and  True  God  is  supreme  in  the  sacred  pale  of 
the  kingdom  of  grace,  the  cruel  and  capricious 
Setebos,  the  horrible  god  of  the  beastly  Caliban, 
rules  in  the  dark  and  dismal  and  damned  regions 
that  are  without. 

No  one  believes  that  Professor  Huxley's  words 
closed  the  discussion.  The  lecture  had  in  it  much 
wholesome  truth,  but  the  premises  were  wrong, 

1See  Seth's  Man's  Place  in  the  Cosmos,  p.  40. 
2  Through  Nature  to  God,  p.  76. 


126  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

and  the  conclusions  farther  wrong.  We  can 
accept  neither  the  Fiske  nor  the  Huxley  verdict 
as  correct.  While  Drummond  would  ethicize 
nature,  Fiske  would  naturalize  ethics  ;  and  Hux- 
ley, seeing  too  much  of  "  the  ape  and  tiger,"  too 
much  of  "  nature  red  in  tooth  and  claw,"  gives  it 
up  in  despair,  an  agnostic  to  the  last  with  some- 
thing of  the  Stoic  hero  in  it  all.  Fiske  holds  to 
his  thesis,  and  yet  with  optimistic  faith  insists  that 
"  though  in  many  ways  God's  work  is  above  our 
comprehension,  yet  those  parts  of  the  world's 
story  that  we  can  decipher  will  warrant  the  belief 
that  while  in  nature  there  may  be  divine  irony, 
there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  wanton  mockery, 
for  profoundly  underlying  the  surface  entangle- 
ments of  her  actions  we  may  discern  the  omni- 
present ethical  trend."  l 

But  the  method  is  wrong.  Notwithstanding 
his  disclaimer,  the  presuppositions  are  there,  and 
they  are  wrong.  When  we  may  expect  to  gather 
grapes  of  thorns  and  figs  from  thistles,  we  may 
expect  to  get  a  satisfying  religious  faith  from  the 
husks  of  agnosticism.  If  we  begin  our  search 
by  denying  all  but  the  evolved  cosmos,  we  must 
let  our  right  hand  be  ignorant  of  what  our  left 
hand   is    doing,   before   we   can  find   the  Super- 

1  Through  Nature  to  God,  pp.  129,  130. 


ETHICAL  VERSIONS  OF  THE  COSMOS      127 

natural  or  the  Divine.  It  would  be  hard  to  find 
a  more  judicious  comment  upon  this  line  of  cos- 
mical  interpretations,  at  once  conceding  its  merits 
and  indicating  its  errors,  than  the  passage  with 
which  Dr.  Martineau  closes  his  discussion  of 
Evolutionary  Hedonistic  theories :  "  So  long  as 
it  sets  itself  to  find  the  moral  in  the  unmoral,  to 
identify  the  order  of  right  with  the  order  of 
strength,  to  repudiate  any  study  of  what  ought 
to  be  except  in  studying  what  has  been,  is,  and 
will  be,  it  totally  shuts  the  door  in  the  face  of  all 
conception  and  possibility  of  Duty,  and  by  natu- 
ralizing Ethies  reverses  the  idealizing  process 
which  rather  ethicizes  nature.  It  subjugates  char- 
acter to  science,  instead  of  freeing  it  into  Re- 
ligion."1 

All  evolutionary  theories  are  presumably  mon- 
istic, but  students  of  the  subject  will  not  forget 
that  from  most  ancient  times  there  have  been 
dualistic  theories  of  the  world ;  and  that  the  oc- 
casion for  these  has  been  largely  in  this  mystery 
of  evil.  The  history  of  ontological  dualism2  is  a 
singularly  interesting  witness  to   the   persistence 

1  Types  of  Ethical  Theory,  vol.  ii.,  p.  424.     Italics  his. 

2  However,  I  believe  that  in  the  old  Persian  Dualism,  in  its 
last  analysis,  Good  was  held  to  be  preexistent  to  Evil  ;  though 
the  popular  conception  was  that  they  are  co^ternal. 


128  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

of  an  idea  which  is  in  itself  rationally  untenable, 
and  yet  which  seems  to  serve,  however  ineffec- 
tively, to  relieve  this  deep  difficulty.  Old  Zoroas- 
trianism,  with  its  Ormuzd  and  Ahriman,  regarded 
the  conflict  between  Good  and  Evil  as  eternal ; 
Evil  always  has  been  and  always  shall  be.  To 
be  sure,  this  doctrine  destroys  pure  theism,  elimi- 
nates responsibility,  and  gives  the  lie  to  con- 
sciousness ;  but  its  saving  virtue  is  in  its  theodicy, 
according  to  which  it  acquits  the  holy  God  of  all 
the  evil  in  the  world.  As  we  have  seen,  Mr.  J.  S. 
Mill  arrived  at  a  position  not  far  from  this ;  and 
it  has  had  a  popular  setting  forth  in  the  book, 
already  referred  to  at  the  beginning  of  this  lec- 
ture, Evil  and  Evolution.  This  book  is,  in  effect, 
a  scientific  vindication  of  the  doctrine  of  a  per- 
sonal devil,  and  we  submit  that,  with  personality 
as  the  highest  category  of  our  thinking,  the 
author  makes  no  mean  showing  for  his  case. 
His  argument  would  enhance  the  holiness  of  God 
by  subtracting  from  His  power.  The  cosmical 
creation,  xuocz,  was  "  very  good "  at  the  begin- 
ning ;  but  some  "  being  with  the  intellect  and  the 
power  of  a  God  and  the  malignity  of  a  devil " 
interposed  and  upset  the  nice  adjustment.  This 
was  a  "  comparatively  slight  disturbance,"  but  in 
a  delicate  organism  it  needs  but  a  slight  touch  to 


ETHICAL  VERSIONS  OF  THE  COSMOS      129 

work  havoc  in  the  whole.  God  neither  designed 
nor  foresaw  the  Fall ;  otherwise,  "  He  is  entirely- 
responsible  for  all  that  has  come  of  it."  "  The 
great  secret  lies  impenetrably  concealed  in  the 
mystery  of  free  will."  l  The  argument  has  its  de- 
fects, too  obvious  even  to  mention ;  but  it  is  a 
reverent  essay  on  the  old  problem,  defending  the 
thesis  that  there  must  be  a  devil,  if  God  is  to  be 
God.  If  sin  is  essentially  a  choosing  amiss,  and 
if  choice  is  the  act  of  a  person,  then  is  it  not 
philosophical  to  trace  it  to  a  personal  source? 
The  book  never  draws  upon  Scripture,  it  being 
aside  from  its  purpose  to  do  so,  but,  in  so  far 
forth,  it  is  clear  that  the  argument  approaches 
biblical  teachings.  We  believe  that  it  does  this 
much,  it  shows  that  the  belief  in  the  existence 
of  a  personal  devil  is  not  unscientific  or  absurd. 
Modern  attempts  at  the  ethical  gauging  of  the 
cosmos  have  been  greatly  influenced  by  the  wide 
acceptance  of  the  doctrine  of  evolution.  All 
modern  thinking  has  done  obeisance  to  this  idea. 
Dr.  Edward  Caird  says,  "  We  may,  indeed,  say 
without  much  exaggeration  that  the  thought  of 
almost  all  the  great  speculative  and  scientific 
writers  of  this  century  has  been  governed  and 
guided  by  the  principle  of    development,  if    not 

1  P.  198. 
9 


130  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

directly  devoted  to  its  illustration." l  Any  manual 
of  History  of  Philosophy  will  show  at  a  glance 
that  this  idea  is  no  new  thing  under  the  sun  ;  and 
yet,  it  is,  of  course,  true  that,  with  the  impetus 
given  to  it  first  by  Hegel  in  his  idealistic  concep- 
tion of  development,  and  later  by  Darwin  and 
Wallace  and  others,  bringing  to  it  the  rich  treas- 
ures of  their  scientific  researches  and  enriching  it 
especially  in  its  biological  references,  it  has  be- 
come the  dominating  note  in  modern  thought. 

In  its  widest  connotations,  evolution  is  well- 
nigh  self-evident.  History  is  description,  and 
time-description  is  impossible  if  there  be  not 
causative  and  formative  elements  in  antecedent 
conditions.  The  present  has  in  it  the  past  capi- 
talized and  the  future  in  embryo.  Evolution  is 
unfolding,  and  the  broad  conception  is  a  sine  qua 
non  of  the  historical  method.  Natural  history  is 
a  branch  of  cosmical  science,  and,  in  a  sense,  all 
science  is  history. 

If  you  were  asked  whether  you  believe  in  evolu- 
tion, you  would  not  reply  until  you  had  ascertained 
what  your  interviewer  understood  by  the  word. 
Few  words  are  so  elastic  and  so  loosely  used. 
For  example,  in  taking  up  the  two  books  which 
lie  nearest  at  hand,  I  find  Professor  Drummond 
1  The  Evolution  of  Religion,  vol.  i.,  p.  24. 


ETHICAL  VERSIONS  OF  THE  COSMOS      131 

saying  that  evolution  is  but  "  a  general  name  for 
the  history  of  the  steps  by  which  the  world  has 
come  to  be  what  it  is."  l  But,  if  it  be  objected 
that  this  is  only  a  popular  book  on  the  subject, 
we  turn  to  the  other  volume,  by  one  of  the  lead- 
ing proponents  of  the  doctrine,  Professor  Joseph 
Le  Conte,  and  while  we  find  his  careful  and  pre- 
cise definition  which  has  become  classical,2  yet 
later  on  we  find  such  statements  as  these  :  "  Evo- 
lution is  a  law  of  continuity,  a  universal  law  of 
becoming;"  "it  is  a  law  of  derivation  of  forms 
from  previous  forms."  "  The  words  Evolutionism 
and  Evolutionist  ought  no  longer  to  be  used,  any 
more  than  gravitationism  and  gravitationist,  for 
the  law  of  Evolution  is  as  certain  as  the  law  of 
gravitation ;  nay,  it  is  far  more  certain,  it  is 
axiomatic."3  Suppose  we  should  subscribe  to 
all  this,  or  to  some  of  it ;  well,  we  have  accepted 
evolution ;  and  then,  by  some  hocus  pocus,  a 
specific  theory  of  evolution  or  some  formidable 
formula,  like  Mr.  Spencer's,4  is  substituted  for 
what  we  had  subscribed  to,  and  we  are  misrepre- 
sented. Certainly  no  one  would  reject  evolution 
if  it  is  only  an  account  of  how  the  world  came  to 

1  The  Ascent  of  Man,  p.  3. 

2  Evolution  and  its  Relation  to  Religious  Thought,  p.  S. 
s  Ibid.,  pp.  65,  66.  *  First  Principles,  p.  396. 


1 32  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

be  what  it  is ;  we  all  believe  that  history  is  a  con- 
tinuum, and  that  the  events  which  it  narrates  some- 
how constitute  an  unbroken  unity.  But  this  is 
not  Evolution  in  its  accepted  and  technical  sense. 

Sentimental  considerations  count  for  little  with 
thoughtful  people,  either  way.  Possibly  it  is  not 
necessary  to  fasten  the  stigma  of  agnosticism 
upon  evolution,  although  it  has  been  its  bad  for- 
tune that  so  many  of  its  leading  exponents  have 
coupled  that  bankrupting  epistemology  with  their 
favorite  cosmology.  It  is  very  significant  that 
Messrs.  Huxley,  Spencer,  and  Fiske,  all  have  been 
avowed  agnostics,  and  yet  Professor  Huxley  was 
eager  to  clear  evolution  of  his  personal  religious 
views  when  he  said :  "  Evolution  has  no  more  to 
do  with  theism  than  the  first  book  of  Euclid 
has."1 

On  the  other  hand,  however,  we  are  told  by 
such  a  devout  Christian  evolutionist  as  Professor 
Lc  Conte  that  the  acceptance  of  evolution  means 
a  revolution  in  religious  thought ; 2  that  it  necessi- 
tates a  "  reconstruction  of  Christian  theology  "  ; 3 
and  that  with  it  "  the  distinction  between  the 
natural  and  the  supernatural  disappears  from  view, 

1  Encyclopedia  Britannica;  Article,  "Evolution." 
''■Evolution  and  Its  Relation  to  Religious  Thought,  see  p.  280. 
8  Ibid.,  see  p.  295. 


ETHICAL  VERSIONS  OF  THE  COSMOS      133 

and  also  the  necessity  of  miracles  as  we  usually 
understand  miracles."  l  We  should  deceive  our- 
selves then,  according  to  the  judgment  of  Pro- 
fessor Le  Conte,  if  we  infer  that,  because  evolution 
is  declared  innocent  of  agnostic  implications,  it 
does  not  entail  very  important  theological  conse- 
quences. 

It  is  not  denied  that  the  gaps  which  have 
always  embarrassed  the  evolutionist  are  still  un- 
filled ;  its  breaks  are  still  unbridged.  The  first 
appearance  of  life,  of  sentiency,  of  self-conscious- 
ness, and  of  conscience,  has  not  yet  been  provided 
for  in  the  evolutionary  programme.  It  is  easy  to 
formulate  grand  schemes,  but  up  to  date  it  is 
frankly  admitted,  by  fair  and  competent  scientific 
scholars,  that  it  has  not  yet  been  possible  to 
find  the  required  supporting  evidence.  Professor 
Drummond  himself  says  :  "  No  one  asks  more  of 
Evolution  at  present  than  permission  to  use  it  as 
a  working  theory."2  So  that  we  are  to  regard 
the  technical  theory  of  evolution  as  a  scheme  of 
world-history,  and,  upon  the  statement  of  its 
most  eager  defenders,  as  a  confessedly  unproved 
hypothesis. 

Not  a  little  intellectual  energy  has  been  ex- 

1  Ibid.,  see  p.  356.     Italics  his. 

2  The  Ascent  of  Alan,  p.  6. 


134  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

pended  in  the  last  generation  in  the  effort  to  define 
the  formal  relations  between  the  scientific  doc- 
trine of  evolution  and  evangelical  Christianity. 
Unhappily,  much  of  this  has  been  done  in  a  crude 
and  quarrelsome  spirit  and  from  an  ex  parte  point 
of  view.  In  many  cases,  neither  attorney  has 
known  too  well  the  real  nature  of  his  opponent's 
cause,  if  indeed  he  was  well  enough  acquainted 
with  that  of  his  own  client.  We  are  persuaded 
that  a  correct  knowledge  of  each  would  go  far 
toward  dissolving  the  difficulties  and  the  differ- 
ences. Truth  needs  no  labored  harmonizing  with 
truth ;  its  best  defense  is  often  its  clearest  state- 
ment. A  recent  attempt,  from  the  side  of  the 
Christian  faith,  has  been  made  in  a  book  written, 
we  suspect,  by  a  busy  pastor  who  feels  the  need 
of  some  modus  viveudi,  at  least;  a  book  which, 
though  not  very  profound  in  its  insight  or  very 
broad  in  its  scope,  has  been  pronounced  by  a 
competent  critic1  an  important  and  worthy  pio- 
neer in  a  line  in  which  others  are  sure  to  follow. 
Probably  the  popular  style  of  the  book  will  make 
it  widely  influential ;  but  we  are  convinced  that  if 
this  is  the  best  showing  that  can  be  made,  the 
books  that  are  to  follow  his  will  be,  in  a  large 
measure,  love's  labor  lost.  In  his  zeal  to  con- 
1  Dr.  James  Iverach,  in  the  Critical  Review,  October,  1900. 


ETHICAL  VERSIONS  OF  THE  COSMOS      135 

ciliate  biblical  Christianity  and  scientific  evolution, 
the  author  modifies  both  terms  of  the  equation 
until  many  Christians  would  regard  his  Chris- 
tianity as  unbiblical,  and  many  scientists  would 
regard  his  evolution  as  unscientific.  An  intel- 
lectual conception  of  Christianity  with  such  a  doc- 
trine of  inspiration  as  reduces  Bible  history  to  a 
myth,1  and  with  such  a  doctrine  of  the  Incarna- 
tion as  makes  Christ  the  procreating  "  Individual 
who  started  the  new  Type,"2  "  embryonically 
incarnated  "  in  Old  Testament  prophecy,3  certainly 
seems  to  us  to  strain  itself  overmuch  to  bring  its 
teachings  under  evolutionary  categories.  And, 
moreover,  the  outright  antagonism  between  any 
theory  of  individual  redemption  on  the  one  hand, 
and  evolution  on  the  other,  which,  according  to 
Professor  Le  Conte  (whom  Mr.  Griffith-Jones 
wisely  selects  as  the  best  exponent  of  Christian 
evolution),  has  no  provision  for  such  a  restoration, 
for  "  once  off  the  track  and  it  is  impossible  to  get 
on  again " ; 4  and  the  author's  frank  admission 
"  that  so  far  the  time  does  not  seem  to  have  come 
for  a  complete  restatement  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Atonement  on  evolutionary  lines  " ; 5 — all  this 

1  The  Ascent  Through  Christ,  see  pp.  98-112. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  369.  3Ibid.,  p.  377. 
iIbid.,  p.  321.  6  Ibid.,  pp.  289,  290. 


136  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

is  by  no  means  reassuring  to  the  reader  who  turns 
to  this  attractive  volume  for  the  reconciliation 
desired.  At  best,  it  is  an  attempt  rather  than  an 
accomplishment ;  a  study  rather  than  a  conclusion. 

We  are  not  now  presuming  to  pronounce  a 
judgment  upon  evolution.  It  must  more  defi- 
nitely state  its  case  and  produce  its  evidence.  The 
historical  principle  is  one  thing,  and  a  particular 
evolutionary  theory  is  another.  We  hesitate  to 
pay  the  large  price  exacted  until  we  can  know 
precisely  what  we  are  to  get.  It  is  a  radical  pro- 
gramme that  is  proposed.  If  our  religious  thought 
is  to  be  revolutionized ;  if  the  supernatural  is  to 
vanish  and  miracles — yes,  even  as  we  have  under- 
stood them — are  to  be  dismissed,  then  we  must 
not  be  regarded  as  foolishly  wedded  to  our  faith 
if  we  insist  that  a  doctrine  more  clearly  stated  and 
more  fully  supported,  a  cosmical  interpretation 
less  beset  with  admitted  embarrassments,  a  theory 
of  things  a  trifle  more  susceptible  of  distinct  har- 
monizing with  the  things  which  we  have  been  hold- 
ing both  as  true  and  sacred,  shall  be  at  once  forth- 
coming as  a  compensation  for  what  we  are  to 
give  up. 

Let  it  be  understood  that  we  plead  "  Not  guilty" 
to  the  charge  of  hostile  prejudice  against  evolu- 
tion.    We  think  we  are  fair  enough  to  discount 


ETHICAL  VERSIONS  OF  THE  COSMOS      137 

very  much  that  is  said  both  for  and  against  it,  as 
very  wild  and  wide  of  the  mark.  We  heartily 
concede  that  it  has  brought  rich  contributions  to 
modern  world-study.  We  believe  that  it  has  in  it 
much  that  is  distinctly  true.  It  has  not  revolu- 
tionized but  illuminated  the  old  argument  from 
Design.  Paley  suffers,  possibly,  although  not  so 
much  as  is  often  alleged,  and  his  truth  is  enforced 
more  grandly  than  Paley  ever  imagined  ;  for  while 
we  believe  that  teleology  loses  somewhat  in  the 
retail,  it  gains  vastly  in  the  wholesale.  No  man 
has  his  eyes  open  upon  the  world  but  sees  the 
ever-present  germinal  principle  of  development  at 
work.  It  is  not  a  question  of  whether?  but  of 
what?  But  all  this  is  entirely  innocent,  and  it  is 
not  the  technical  theory  of  universal  cosmical 
evolution.  We  must  regard  this  theory  in  so  far 
as  it  negatives  whatever  we  have  heretofore  held 
as  true,  as  properly  under  bonds  to  certify  its  own 
truth ;  until  this  is  done  we  shall  hold  steadily  to 
our  course  without  embarrassment  and  without 
apprehension ;  in  the  event  of  this  being  done, 
then  we  shall  be  bound  to  reconsider  the  grounds 
on  which  we  have  been  basing  our  faith. 

The  kindliest  critic  of  evolution,  in  his  most 
propitious  mood,  could  scarcely  content  himself 
with   saying  less  than   this,  namely,  that   many 


138  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

teachers  of  evolution  have  committed  their  great- 
est blunder  in  claiming  too  much  for  their  theory. 
We  do  not  believe  that  the  Spencerian  ambition  to 
include  all  known  phenomena  under  the  all-com- 
prehending category  of  evolution  will  ever  per- 
manently commend  itself  to  sober  and  thoughtful 
minds.  Already  a  reaction  has  come,  and  the 
world  does  not  take  Mr.  Spencer  very  seriously. 
But  even  in  his  scheme,  God  is  above  and  beyond 
all.  He  says,  God  cannot  be  known ;  but  that  is 
the  voice  of  his  agnosticism,  not  of  his  evolution. 
Evolution  has  a  selfish  interest  in  preaching  the 
Divine  Immanence.  Indeed,  many  of  its  cham- 
pions are  not  very  careful  to  stand  apart  from 
pantheism.  The  immanence  of  God  is  a  great 
truth,  but,  though  there  be  many  who  would  have 
us  believe  otherwise,  it  is  no  new  thing  under  the 
sun.  Augustine  and  Calvin  both  taught  it  as 
clearly  as  it  has  ever  since  been  taught.  It  is  not 
all  the  truth.  It  is  not  one  whit  more  important, 
more  scriptural,  or  more  necessary  to  a  true  cos- 
mical  theoiy,  than  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine 
Transcendence.  If  God  is  in  the  cosmical  proc- 
ess, He  is  above  it,  also.  God  is  greater  than 
His  world ;  the  world  reveals  Him,  but  there  is 
more  of  God  than  the  world  either  contains  or 
reveals.     He  is  its  author  and  its  end;  its  begin- 


ETHICAL  VERSIONS  OF  THE  COSMOS      139 

ning  and  its  goal.  We  know  God  in  a  way  by 
knowing  His  world ;  and  that  world  is  knowable 
because  a  rational  God,  preexistent,  independent, 
and  transcendent,  has  given  it  both  its  being  and 
its  form. 

A  severe  test  of  evolution,  as  of  any  other 
cosmical  theory,  is  its  ability  to  take  account  of 
the  fact  of  sin.  Not  that  it  must  solve  the  mys- 
tery, for  no  theory  can  do  that ;  but  it  must  have 
a  place  for  sin,  as  sin,  and  this  we  distinctly  be- 
lieve that  evolution  cannot  do.  Evolutionary 
anthropology  has  never  satisfactorily  squared  it- 
self with  the  Genesis  narrative  of  the  historical 
introduction  of  sin  into  our  world.  We  need  not 
infer  the  Miltonic  Adam  from  the  Mosaic;  but 
we  cannot  reconcile  the  Adam  of  uninterrupted 
evolution  with  the  Adam  of  the  biblical  account. 
We  decline  to  see  in  present  day  degenerate  sav- 
ages the  true  living  representatives  of  primitive 
man.  We  do  not  picture  the  Edenic  Adam  as  a 
highly  civilized  citizen,  nor  are  we  anxious  to 
prove  that  he  was  intellectually  a  greater  man 
than  Aristotle.  Solitude  is  incompatible  with  civi- 
lization as  we  know  it,  for  civilization  is  essentially 
social,  industrial,  economical,  and  commerical. 
In  his  moral  equipment,  as  yet  undeveloped  and 
unutilized,  the  Adam  of  Genesis  is  a  vastly  dif- 


140  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

ferent  kind  of  being  from  the  Adam  of  evolution, 
sluggishly  waking  into  human  capacities,  falling 
upward  into  the  dawning  consciousness  of  right 
and  wrong,  and  rising  at  last  to  the  permanent 
dignity  of  a  guilty  sinner.  We  speak  only  of  a 
Spencerian  naturalistic  evolution  as  applied  to  the 
origin  of  Man,  and  we  insist  that  such  a  first  man 
is  inconsistent  with  any  fair  interpretation  of  the 
Scripture  record,  and  is  without  adequate  evidence 
to-day  to  justify  his  claim  upon  our  belief  or  our 
respect. 

No  more  can  the  evolutionary  programme 
account  for  Christianity,  for  the  Christian  or  for 
Christ.  If  Christianity  is  true  at  all,  then  it  is 
entitled  to  have  its  works  accepted  at  their  face 
value  not  only,  but  to  have  its  own  explanations 
of  those  works  accepted  as  well.  The  history 
of  Christianity  is  a  stupendous  enigma  apart  from 
Christianity's  Book.  The  Bible  furnishes  the 
only  adequate  rationale  of  Christianity,  historical, 
moral,  redemptive,  and  social. 

This  being  so,  the  redemption  of  the  individual 
Christian  is  a  sore  puzzle  to  the  world-student, 
who  would  fain  explain  all  he  finds  on  the  prin- 
ciple of  a  purely  naturalistic  evolution.  The 
evolutionist  is  bound  to  abhor  the  very  word  "  re- 
generation "  unless  he  eviscerate  it  of  its  meaning. 


ETHICAL  VERSIONS  OF  THE  COSMOS      141 

Our  Lord's  conversation  with  Nicodemus  is  abso- 
lutely unsusceptible  of  translation  into  the  evolu- 
tionary language.  "  Ye  must  be  born  again — 
avwdeu."  "  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is 
flesh ;  and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is 
spirit."  And  what  is  true  of  the  initiative  is  true 
of  the  whole ;  the  new  life  is  sustained  by  the 
same  source  whence  comes  the  new  birth.  Omne 
vivum  ex  vivo.  To  be  sure,  there  is  a  process  of 
growth,  but  there  is  an  element  of  the  supernatu- 
ral which  is  the  vital  factor  in  it  all.  "  I  am  the 
vine,  ye  are  the  branches." 

Nor  is  this  less  true  of  Christianity  as  a  life- 
force  and  life-giving  force  in  the  world's  history. 
Christianity  cannot  be  accounted  for  on  purely 
evolutionary  principles.  It  has  its  home  in  this 
law-ruled  world,  and  in  a  thousand  ways  it  exerts 
its  benign  and  heavenly  influences  in  a  manner 
which  is  harmonious  with  the  processes  and 
methods  of  the  cosmical  sphere  in  which  it 
works ;  but  to  de-supernaturalize  Christianity  is 
to  destroy  it.  We  speak  not  now  of  its  miracles 
and  theophanies ;  we  are  not  now  concerned  for 
its  apologetical  and  evidential  aspects ;  we  are 
only  saying  that  as  we  cannot  account  for  an  in- 
dividual Christian  on  the  mere  lines  of  naturalistic 
evolution,  no  more  can  we  account  for  a  social 


142  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

Christian  community  in  the  same  way.  We  can 
no  more  account  for  the  church  at  Uganda  than 
we  can  account  for  David  Livingstone ;  we  can  no 
more  account  for  the  Christian  community  of  the 
New  Hebrides  than  we  can  account  for  John  G. 
Paton.  Social  Christianity  gives  to  evolution  a 
many  times  harder  nut  to  crack  than  does  one 
individual  Christian.  If  it  cannot  account  for 
one  ennobled  publican,  for  one  changed  and  chas- 
tened proud,  persecuting  Pharisee,  how  shall  it 
account  for  the  Church  of  God,  with  its  unnum- 
bered saints,  raised  from  sin  to  purity,  who  by 
lip  and  life  ascribe  the  power  that  raised  them 
to  a  source  that  is  both  from  without  and  from 
above  ? 

And,  as  both  individual  Christian  character  and 
historical  Christianity  have  their  origin  in  Jesus 
Christ,  we  go  on  to  say  that,  above  all  else,  the 
Christ  of  Christianity,  even  more  than  the  Chris- 
tianity of  Christ,  cannot  be  accounted  for  on  the 
evolutionary  hypothesis.  The  Incarnation  of 
Evangelical  Christian  doctrine  obstinately  refuses 
to  submit  itself  to  the  categories  of  naturalistic 
evolution.  I  am  not  now  referring  specifically  to 
the  Immaculate  Conception  of  the  Child  of  the 
Virgin ;  I  am  not  wishing  to  touch  the  mooted 
question  whether    the    Incarnation  would    have 


ETHICAL  VERSIONS  OF  THE  COSMOS      143 

occurred  by  virtue  of  a  necessity  born  of  the 
nature  of  things,  or  whether  the  Divine  tabernac- 
ling in  the  flesh  was  expressly  and  exclusively  for 
redemptive  purposes ;  we  waive  all  that,  and  put 
evolution  to  the  test  to  account  for  the  Christ  that 
is  known,  not  to  the  philosopher  and  the  critic, 
but  to  the  world  and  to  the  heart ;  and  we  submit 
that,  upon  its  own  answer,  it  is  found  wanting. 
If  we  must  drop  the  essential  character  of  sin  to 
let  evolution  account  for  sin,  so  must  we  drop  the 
essential  character  of  Christ  to  let  evolution 
account  for  Christ.  We  believe  that  Professor 
Le  Conte's  well-known  effort  to  evolutionize  Christ 
is  a  complete  failure,  and  we  cannot  believe  that  his 
argument  ever  afforded  entire  satisfaction  to  his 
own  exceptionally  reverent  mind.1  To  grant  an 
exception  to  the  law  in  order  to  account  for  Christ 
is  virtually  to  concede  the  inadequacy  of  the  prin- 
ciple as  a  basis  for  the  accounting.  Certainly,  as 
Dr.  Forest  has  convincingly  shown,2  if  evolu- 
tion is  to  account  for  Christ,  then  the  climax 
should  have  appeared  at  the  finale  of  the  evolving 
process  ;  but  that  would  have  been  to  defeat  the 
very  object  of  his  coming. 

1  Evolution  and  Its  Relation  to  Religious  Thought,  pp.  360-364. 
s  The  Christ  of  History  and  of  Experience,  2d  ed.,  pp.  3S8- 
390- 


144  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

The  Christ  of  history  ushered  a  new  moral  era 
into  the  course  of  man.  A  new  force  throbs,  a 
new  life  pulsates,  a  new  ideal,  surcharged  with 
divine  dynamic,  enters  upon  its  renovating,  regen- 
erating work.  The  historian  has  refused  to  clas- 
sify Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  other  men  and  stop 
there.  We  can  neither  naturalize  man  nor  human- 
ize Christ,  simply.  It  is  not  mere  theology ;  it  is 
not  dry  philosophy;  it  is  the  common  judgment  of 
mankind,  enforced  by  reflection  and  confirmed  by 
an  experience  that  is  both  individual  and  unique, 
that  even  though  men  may  reduce  the  race  to  a 
common  cosmic  level  and  presume  to  account  for 
the  generations  upon  some  law  of  naturalistic 
biological  evolution,  still  Jesus  of  Nazareth, -in 
himself,  in  what  he  stands  for,  and  in  what  he 
instituted,  stands  out  the  Great  Exception  in  the 
history  of  humanity,  putting  to  confusion  all  or- 
dinary anthropological  estimates  and  utterly  with- 
standing every  naturalistic  mode  of  accounting. 

Thus  we  do  our  best  for  evolution,  and 
still  we  find  it  lacking.  If  it  is  a  world-pro- 
gramme, there  are  serious  unclosed  breaks  in 
that  programme.  It  is  sheer  folly  to  say  that  it 
is  natural  and  continuous,  with  God,  for  the 
human  evolutionist  must  use  the  language  of 
human   science,  and   not   of   divine  omniscience. 


ETHICAL  VERSIONS  OF  THE  COSMOS      145 

These  admitted  breaks  are  serious ;  notably  from 
non-being  to  being,  from  the  non-living  to  life, 
from  the  non-sentient  to  the  sentient,  and  from 
the  non-moral  to  the  moral.1  It  is  not  that  we 
deny  that  there  is  a  great  truth  in  the  theory 
which  is  found  both  in  the  laws  of  thought  and 
in  the  nature  of  things.  It  is  rather  that  with  as 
judicious  a  frame  as  we  are  able  to  command 
and  with  as  hospitable  a  consideration  of  the  evi- 
dence as  we  can  give,  we  find  ourselves  forced  to 
conclude  that  the  evolutionary  philosophy,  which 
is  at  best  merely  descriptive,  is  unsatisfactory  as 
an  ethical  valuation  and  that  it  is  only  by  a  con- 
fusion of  ideas  that  it  can  be  regarded  as  in  any 
final  sense  a  philosophy  at  all.  The  idea  has  its 
merits  and  its  place ;  its  standing  vice  is  its  claim- 
ing too  much  for  itself;  its  blunder  is  its  presum- 
ing to  account  for  the  world,  whereas,  when  it 
does  its  very  best,  it  only  describes  the  world 
which  still  waits  for  its  accounting. 

1  My  esteemed  friend,  Professor  G.  H.  Howison,  LL.D,,  has 
just  published  a  volume  entitled,  The  Limits  of  Evolution,  and 
Other  Essays  (Macmillan,  1901),  the  first  paper  in  which,  giving 
title  to  the  book,  is  a  most  careful  critique  of  evolution.  He 
names  five  "limits,"  viz.:  I.  Between  the  Phenomenal  and  the 
Noumenal ;  2.  Between  the  Inorganic  and  the  Organic  ;  3.  Between 
the  Physiological  and  the  Logical  ;  4.  Between  the  Unknowable 
and  the  Explanatory;  5.  Between  Nature  and  Human  Nature. 
10 


LECTURE  V 
MAN  AS  FACTOR  IN  THE  COSMOS 


LECTURE  V 

MAN  AS  FACTOR  IN  THE  COSMOS 

Man  bears  a  twofold  relation  to  the  General 
Revelation  which  is  in  the  cosmos.  In  the  first 
place,  he  is  a  part  of  it.  If  the  world  is  the  em- 
bodiment of  ideas,  then,  seeing  that  man  has  a 
place  in  the  world,  he  must  figure  among  the 
ideas  which  it  embodies.  But,  in  the  second  place, 
man  is  the  beholder  of  the  cosmos,  the  person  to 
whom  its  revelations  are  addressed.  He  may  not 
be  the  only  beholder,  for  we  know  that  angels 
also  are  interested  spectators  of  the  vast  "  the- 
ater "  of  time.1  Certainly  it  is  an  honoring  recog- 
nition of  the  Godlike  in  man  that  the  Creator 
deigns  to  show  forth  to  him  His  glory  in  the 
heavens,  and  to  declare  to  him  His  will  in  His 
Living  and  Written  Word. 

Let  us  devote  the  present  hour  to  the  consid- 
eration of  man  as  an  integral  factor  in  the  grand 
perspective  of  world-rationality,  while  we  reserve 
the  next  for  man  as  the  wondering  seer,  the  active 
learner  of  what  is  thus  revealed. 

1  /  Cor.  4:9;/  Peter  I  :  12. 
*  149 


150  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

The  most  casual  view  of  man  and  of  his  place 
in  the  order  of  which  he  is  a  part,  discloses  again 
a  double  character.  He  is  purely  natural,  cos- 
mical.  He  has  his  locus  in  space  and  time.  He 
begins  to  be,  he  flourishes  for  a  season,  and  then 
he  passes  away.  He  is  born,  he  develops,  he  de- 
clines, and  dies.  As  such  a  cosmical  phenom- 
enon, he  belongs  to  the  same  category  with  the 
beast  and  the  bird,  with  the  shriveling  leaf  and 
the  crumbling  clod,  with  the  cooling  planet  and 
the  fading  star.  He  weighs  so  many  pounds 
avoirdupois ;  he  occupies  so  many  cubic  units  of 
space ;  he  is  subject  to  the  common  laws  of 
chemistry  and  of  mortality.  He  is  not  an  excep- 
tional bit  of  reality  in  the  world  in  which  he 
dwells.  Nature  treats  him  precisely  as  she  treats 
the  rest  of  her  products,  and  gravitation  does  not 
"  cease  as  he  passes  by." 

But  if  he  is  this,  he  is  just  as  truly  more  than 

this. 

"  Unless  above  himself  he  can 
Erect  himself,  how  weak  a  thing  is  man." 

If  he  is  a  part  of  the  cosmos,  he  is  also  an 
image  of  the  Logos.  If  he  is  the  microcosm,  he 
is  also  the  micrologue.  To  stop  with  what  is 
merely  cosmical  in  man  is  to  miss  what  preemi- 
nently makes  him  man.     If  he  is  body,  he  is  spirit 


MAN  AS  FACTOR  IN  THE  COSMOS         151 

also ;  if  he  is  subject  to  gravitation,  he  can  soar 
above  it,  too ;  if  he  crumbles  like  the  clod,  he  can 
also  think  and  choose  and  reason  like  a  god. 

Man  is  commonly  said  to  be  of  twofold  com- 
position. He  is  spiritual  and  material ;  he  is 
cosmical  and  super-cosmical.  It  is  nothing  new, 
however,  that  this  theory  should  be  disputed. 
Idealism  and  materialism,  on  a  priori  grounds 
and  from  opposite  view-points,  regard  human 
nature,  in  all  the  vast  round  of  its  complete- 
ness, as  a  simple  unitary  thing.  Idealism  is  a 
term  of  very  uncertain  signification,  and  perhaps, 
in  this  reference,  it  would  be  more  accurate  to  say 
Spiritualism,  although  that  is  a  term  scarcely  less 
ambiguous ;  but,  whatever  may  be  the  term  em- 
ployed, the  philosophy  which  reduces  all  things 
in  their  last  analysis  to  immateriality,  views  man 
as  spirit  only.  This  spirit  may  have  real  objective 
existence,  or  it  may  have  only  ideal  existence ;  in 
any  case,  man  is  wholly  immaterial.  This  anthro- 
pology is  a  corollary  from  a  certain  philosophical 
theory  which  we  may  call  idealistic  monism ;  and 
toward  this  theory,  with  the  distinct  neo-Hegelian 
trend  in  contemporary  thinking,  there  are  in  some 
quarters  signs  of  a  more  or  less  pronounced  drift. 

This  may  seem  like  far-away  speculation,  but 
in  the  search  for  a  world-plan  it  ha?  no   small 


152  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

place.  We  must  confess  ourselves  silly  people 
if  we  take  fright  at  a  mere  name.  There  is  a 
sense  in  which  every  Christian  thinker  is  a  spirit- 
ualistic monist.  God  alone  is,  in  the  sense  that 
He  alone  is  self-existent  and  eternal.  All  else 
has  its  origin  in  Him  and  by  Him  is  kept  in  being. 
And  "God  is  a  Spirit,"  a  Spirit  only.  If  we  carry 
our  view  up  high  enough  and  back  far  enough, 
then,  of  course,  we  all  are  ultimate  idealists  and 
ultimate  monists.  But  if  we  are  to  take  the  world 
as  we  find  it,  if  we  are  to  go  out  and  look  that 
world  over  empirically,  if  we  are  to  base  our 
theory  upon  our  experience  in  the  only  world 
which  we  know  anything  about,  then  we  shall 
write  down  spirit  and  matter  as  equally  final. 
They  are  not  equal  in  faculty  or  in  dignity, 
but  they  are  equally  here.  Notwithstanding  the 
labored  efforts  of  philosophy,  spirit  and  matter 
stubbornly  refuse  to  be  reduced  to  a  common 
denominator,  by  the  plain  man  who  knows  the 
world  he  lives  in.  In  the  study  of  the  actual 
world  which  we  have  to  deal  with,  idealistic 
monism  is  a  pure  fiction  of  the  philosophic  im- 
agination, just  as  the  atom  is  a  pure  product  of 
tl)e  scientific  imagination. 

But  the  monist  quickly  turns  and  tells  us  that 
spirit  and  matter  are  phenomenal  representations 


MAN  AS  FACTOR  IN  THE  COSMOS 


153 


of  the  One  Existing  Substance,  Spinoza's  una  et 
unica  substantia  ;  and  that  if  we  could  only  brush 
aside  the  veil  of  phenomenality  and  get  a  peep 
into  the  most  holy  place  of  reality,  we  should 
see  the  truth  of  his  monistic  theory.  Very  likely; 
it  is  enough  for  us  to  know  that,  veil  or  no  veil, 
wherever  we  can  see  in  this  world,  spirit  and 
matter  coexist  side  by  side,  and  back  of  the  veil 
we  all  must  assume  the  attitude  of  the  agnostic. 

But,  from  the  other  extreme,  there  are  those 
who  stoutly  affirm  that  man  is  matter  only. 
Really,  we  have  never  been  able  to  see  any  differ- 
ence or  preference  between  monistic  idealism  and 
monistic  materialism";  for,  in  the  absence  of  the 
contrasting  other,  the  name  we  give  to  the  one  we 
have  is  certainly  a  matter  of  indifference.  All 
our  thinking  about  spirit  and  matter  were  then 
purest  nonsense,  for  one  of  them  would  be  every- 
thing and  the  other  would  have  no  existence; 
there  is  no  use  for  the  word,  because  what  it 
stands  for  never  existed.  We  cannot  know  what 
we  are  talking  about,  for  according  to  monism 
we  pronounce  what  seems  to  us  to  be  matter 
to  be  not  matter  at  all,  but  spirit,  or  vice  versa ; 
but,  inasmuch  as  our  theory  would  contradict 
the  seeming,  and  inasmuch  as  the  very  words 
we  use,  together  with  the  ideas  which  they  con- 


154  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

note,  are  based  upon  the  things  which  do  seem 
thus,  that  is,  upon  the  things  which  we  know 
and  as  we  kfiow  them,  it  must  follow  that 
the  words  we  use  are  falsely  used,  and  the 
thoughts  we  fain  would  pair  with  them  are  vain 
and  meaningless.  Mr.  Spencer's  words  in  closing 
his  First  Principles  are  above  criticism,  for  if  you 
grant  what  he  thinks  he  has  established,  then  it 
must  be  a  matter  of  the  purest  indifference  to 
him  whether  men  call  him  materialist  or  spirit- 
ualist.1 We  fail  to  see  where  the  monist  can  base 
his  preference  between  the  two.  We  know  both 
spirit  and  matter  in  terms  of  contrast,  each  with 
the  other ;  and  if  the  other  be  blotted  out  of  our 
thinking,  then  the  one  that  is  left  means  nothing 
to  us,  in  any  case.  Professor  Huxley  saw  this 
when  he  said,  "  In  itself  it  is  of  little  moment 
whether  we  express  the  phenomena  of  matter  in 
terms  of  spirit  or  the  phenomena  of  spirit  in 
terms  of  matter."2  In  the  interest  of  science, 
however,  he  preferred  materialistic  terminology. 
Our  epistemology  is  determined  by  our  experi- 
ence ;  our  experience  is  determined  by  the  world 
we  live  in ;  and  the  world  we  live  in  is  a  dualistic 
world.     All  our  thinking  and  talking  and  acting 

1  Pp.  558,  559- 

2  Collected  Essays,  vol.  i.,  p.  164. 


MAN  AS  FACTOR  IN  THE  COSMOS         155 

prove  that  we  so  apprehend  it.  Concerning 
some  other  world  that  might  be  exclusively- 
monistic,  our  modes  of  speaking  and  of  thinking 
have  not  been  trained.  For  once,  we  find  our- 
selves where  agnostics  we  must  be.  We  believe 
that  any  other  than  a  merely  artificial  monistic 
theory  means  utter  agnosticism,  and  we  do  not 
see  how  spiritualistic  monism  has  a  feather-weight 
of  advantage,  in  presumption  or  in  proof,  over  a 
cosmical  monism  which  is  purely  materialistic 
and  not  one  whit  more  hypothetical. 

So  we  conclude  that  these  two  views  are  alike 
deductions  from  a  priori  premises.  Man,  as  we 
know  him,  like  the  world  we  live  in,  as  we  know 
it,  is  dualistic.  If  man  is  not  as  we  know  him, 
and  if  the  world  is  not  as  we  know  it,  then  we  do 
not  know  them  at  all,  and  we  are  left  in  the  dead- 
lock of  helpless  ignorance. 

But  spirit,  or  matter,  or  both,  is  man  more  than 
natural  ?  Is  his  natural  history  his  whole  history, 
and  is  his  natural  decline  his  final  ending?  Is 
there  more  in  man  than  the  forces  of  the  cosmos 
have  produced  ?  Must  all  his  greatness  turn  to 
dust,  and  is  the  horrid  mummy  all  that  survives  a 
Pharaoh's  pomp  and  splendor  in  the  past  ? 

"  Imperious  Csesar,  dead  and  turned  to  clay, 
Might  stop  a  hole  to  keep  the  wind  away." 


156  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

If  we  arc  thus  to  hold  that  man  at  his  noblest 
and  best  is  but  the  ripe  crop  of  nature's  harvest, 
we  shall  need  a  new  interpretation  of  the  fine 
eulogies  which  saints  and  sages  have  in  all  ages 
delighted  to  pronounce  upon  the  possibilities  of 
human  nature.  "  What  a  piece  of  work  is  man ! 
How  noble  in  reason!  How  infinite  in  faculty! 
in  form  and  moving  how  express  and  admirable  ! 
in  action  how  like  an  angel !  in  apprehension  how 
like  a  god !" 

The  naturalistic  theory  of  man  has  had  great 
vogue  latterly.  Man  is  the  climax  of  an  ascend- 
ing series ;  he  is  the  crown  of  creative  processes ; 
he  is  the  topmost  pinnacle  in  the  magnificent 
structure  of  millenial  cosmical  evolutions.  His 
present  is  the  accumulation  and  capitalization  of 
his  age-long  ancestral  past.  Heredity  lifts  him 
up  and  sets  him  on  the  shoulders  of  his  fathers. 
He  is  the  "  heir  of  all  the  ages,  in  the  foremost 
files  of  time."  And  he  is  a  finality ;  from  this  on, 
whatever  may  happen,  it  will  not  be  improvement 
away  from  man,  but  improvement  of  man.  The 
progress  of  the  future  is  to  be  not  physical  but 
psychical ;  the  trained  brain  is  to  invent  the  in- 
genious tool  to  supplement  the  weakness  of  the 
hand ;  racial  evolution  has  given  way  to  social 
civilization.     Man  closes  the  series,  and  Lowell's 


MAN  AS  FACTOR  IN  THE  COSMOS         157 

query  is  born  of  a  fancy  which  is  as  unscientific 
as  it  is  grotesque  : — 

"  Who  knows  but  from  our  loins  may  spring 
(Long  hence)  some  winged  sweet-throated  thing, 
As  much  superior  to  us 
As  we  to  Cynocephalus  ?"  l 

Man  is  the  most  complex  and  complete  of 
beings,  and,  to  use  Mr.  Fiske's  phrase,  "  complete- 
ness of  living  "  is  his  true  goal.2  It  must  be  said 
that  from  the  merely  natural  view  of  human  life 
this  way  of  putting  it  is  very  suggestive ;  it  fits  in 
with  Guizot's  conception  of  civilization  as  being 
the  multiplication  of  human  wants,  and  with  the 
doctrine  that  as  man  grows  in  moral  stature  he 
not  only  has  life,  but  he  has  it  "  more  abundantly." 
But  its  weakness  is  in  confining  itself  to  the 
natural  view  of  human  life.  As  man  succeeds  in 
attaining  to  "  completeness  of  living  "  he  is  good, 
and  as  he  fails  in  this  he  is  bad.  This  is  the 
movable  standard  of  his  moral  law.  When  he 
stumbled  into  consciousness  of  this  high  law  he 
became  truly  man.  Henceforth  the  only  worthy 
rule  of  his  life  is  not  to  survive,  not  to  struggle 
in  order  to  survive ;  it  is  not  to  be  beautiful  nor 
to  be  good  nor  to  be  true ;  but  to  live  completely. 

1  LowelP s  Works,  Riverside  Edition,  vol.x.,  p.  238. 

2  See  especially  Through  ATature  to  GoJ. 


158  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

"  Completeness  of  living  "  is  the  equivalent  for  per- 
fect righteousness.  "  Thou  shalt  live  completely  " 
is  the  summing  up  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets. 

This  is  a  plausible  putting  of  the  theory  of  the 
natural  genesis  of  man's  moral  life.  Mr.  Fiske 
says,  "  Morality  comes  upon  the  scene  when 
there  is  an  alternative  offered  of  leading  better 
lives  or  worse  lives."  l  And,  pray,  if  morality  is 
not  yet  on  the  scene,  what  can  these  words 
"  better  "  and  "  worse  "  mean  ?  Before  that,  there 
was  no  better  or  worse.  No  conscience  is  there, 
and  yet,  at  a  certain  point,  a  conscience  leaps 
forth.  Ex  nihil,  nihil  Jit  It  goes  into  the  evolu- 
tion mill,  mere  non-moral  advantage,  and  it  comes 
out  a  refined  ethical  sense.  The  theory  would 
interpret  "  good  "  and  "  bad  "  in  terms  of  "  com- 
pleteness of  living,"  whereas  man's  moral  sense, 
universally,  precisely  reverses  the  process.  Herein 
is  the  condemnation  of  all  earth-born  theories  of 
ethics.  We  must  not  measure  moral  goodness 
and  badness  by  the  standard  of  that  indefinite 
"completeness  of  living";  we  measure  them  by 
nothing,  but  we  measure  all  things  by  them. 

What  interests  us  now  is  the  naturalistic  way 
of  accounting  for  the  cosmic  disturbance  which 
we  have  found.     It  accounts  for  it  by  denying  it. 

1  Through  Nature  to  Got/,  p.  52. 


MAN  AS  FACTOR  IN  THE  COSMOS         159 

The  "Empirical  Surprise"  is,  upon  sober  second 
thought,  no  surprise  after  all ;  indeed,  the  surprise 
would  have  been  in  its  not  being  here.  What  we 
call  sin  is  a  necessary  stage  and  factor  in  the 
moral  development  of  the  human  race.  No 
strength  without  struggle;  no  character  without 
temptation  ;  no  holiness  without  sin.  The  upward 
course  of  the  race  has  been  the  gradual  molting 
of  sin,  that  is,  the  shedding  of  the  vicious  habits 
and  impulses  of  our  sub-human  sires.  Original  sin 
is  not  a  fiction  ;  it  is  a  fact,  sure  enough,  only  it  is 
not  original  sin  ;  it  is  original,  but  it  is  not  sin. 
The  brute  is  becoming  more  human,  less  brutish. 
We  are  letting  "  the  ape  and  tiger  die,"  though  it 
is  too  true  that  they  "  die  hard."  Evolution  is  no 
longer  merely  a  cosmic  process.  The  will  of  man 
has  somehow  got  itself  into  the  movement  as  a 
modifying  factor;  but,  whatever  he  may  think 
about  it,  this  will  is  no  more  free  than  in  seeming 
to  be  so.  Evolution  is  now  civilization  ;  civilization 
is  humanization  ;  and  humanization  is  all  there  is 
in  what  the  theologian  calls  regeneration,  adop- 
tion, and  sanctification.  This  theory  says  good- 
by  to  the  idea  of  sin  as  sin.  Instead  of  being 
abnormal  it  is  thoroughly  normal.  What  we  have 
been  calling  lack  of  conformity  to  the  law  of  God 
is  the  only  condition  of  both  knowing  and  keep- 


160  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

ing  that  law.  We  may  think  it  is  what  ought  not 
to  be,  but  we  are  mistaken.  Without  what  we 
call  sin  man  could  not  have  been  man ;  he  could 
never  have  entered  upon  the  grand  and  ever- 
expanding  career  which  lies  before  him. 

It  need  scarcely  be  said  that  all  this  is  directly 
opposed  to  the  Bible  doctrine  of  sin  and  the  Chris- 
tian theory  of  human  progress.  Man  was  created 
"  in  the  image  of  God  in  knowledge,  righteousness, 
and  holiness,  with  dominion  over  the  creatures." 
Whatever  may  have  been  his  biological  antece- 
dents and  morphological  affiliations,  his  spirit 
came  by  the  inbreathing  of  his  God,  in  whose 
image  he  was  created.  This  Godlike  image  differ- 
entiated him  from  everything  which  had  gone 
before.  He  was  endowed  with  a  rational  and 
moral  nature,  by  which  he  was  able,  directly  and 
immediately,  to  know  the  true  and  to  choose  the 
right.  In  this  state  of  pristine  innocence  he  was 
able  to  enjoy  free  communion  with  his  God,  while 
the  fields  and  forces  of  nature  were  his  rich  and 
willing  servitors.  He  had  it  in  his  power  to  con- 
tinue in  this  state  of  perfect  innocence  and  happi- 
ness, as  he  had  it  also  in  his  power  to  disobey  the 
distinct  command  of  his  Creator,  and  thus  to  cause 
alienation  between  him  and  his  perfect  Father 
whom  he  thus  resisted.     He  strangely  chose  to 


MAN  AS  FACTOR  IN  THE  COSMOS         161 

disobey,  and  the  promised  calamity  overtook  him. 
"  In  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt 
surely  die  " ;  the  seeds  of  mortality  were  swiftly 
sown  in  the  soil  of  human  nature.  The  ravages 
of  sin  soon  made  havoc  of  the  beautiful  habitat 
and  beatific  habits  of  the  guilty  progenitors  of 
mankind.  The  cosmos  shared  the  suffered  penalty 
with  its  disgraced  and  dethroned  king.  Fruit 
gave  way  to  thorns,  and  fragrant  flowers  degen- 
erated into  briars  and  thistles.  Enmity  came 
between  man  and  animated  nature.  Birds  and 
beasts  flee  from  his  presence  and  lie  in  wait,  con- 
spiring to  destroy  him.  The  world  is  out  of  joint. 
The  whole  cosmos,  man's  larger  body,  which  had 
sympathized  in  his  primitive  harmony  and  bliss, 
now  shares  with  him  the  shame,  the  curse,  the 
penalty,  of  his  disastrous  downfall. 

This,  in  very  brief,  is  the  Christian  doctrine  of 
the  origin  of  the  disorder  and  distress  which 
mar  the  beautiful  world  God  had  made.  It 
affected  both  man  and  his  home,  the  cosmos. 
Both  came  from  the  creative  hand  "  very  good." l 
"  Everything  that  He  had  made  "  was  suited  to 
accomplish  the  purpose  for  which  He  had  made 
it.  "  Everything  is  beautiful  in  its  time."  We 
must  not  forget  that  goodness  means  one  thing 

1  Genesis  I  :  31. 
11 


1 62  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

when  applied  to  a  moral  agent,  and  another  when 
applied  to  impersonal  and  unmoral  objects.  Our 
conception  of  goodness  is  different  when  we  speak 
of  a  good  man,  from  what  it  is  when  we  speak  of 
a  good  ship  or  a  good  orange  or  a  good  law. 
And  yet  there  is  a  deep  sense  in  which  the  mean- 
ing is  the  same.  The  world  was  made  for  a  pur- 
pose, and  so  long  as  it  served  that  purpose  it  was 
very  good.  So,  also,  man  was  made  for  a  pur- 
pose, and  so  long  as  he  served  that  purpose  he 
was  very  good.  But  man  is  a  part  of  the  world ; 
and  when  man  failed  to  serve  his  purpose  by  sin- 
ning against  God,  the  world  itself  could  no  longer 
accomplish  its  aim,  and  was  therefore  no  longer 
very  good.  When  man  sinned,  he  carried  the 
man-ruled  cosmos  down  with  him.  It  was  not 
the  extra-human  world  that  sinned  and  fell ;  it  was 
man,  for  only  man  could  sin.  The  king  fell,  and 
his  kingdom  fell  with  him.  His  dominion  over 
the  creatures  carried  with  it  a  responsibility  for 
the  well-being  of  those  creatures.  His  disobe- 
dience of  God's  command  involved  a  breach  of 
trust  in  this  "  dominion  over  the  fish  of  the  sea, 
and  over  the  fowl  of  the  air,  and  over  the  cattle, 
and  over  all  the  earth,  and  over  every  creeping 
thing  that  creepeth  upon  the  earth." x 

1  Genesis  I  :  26. 


MAN  AS  FACTOR  IN  THE  COSMOS         163 

The  consequent  curse  of  sin  fell  upon  a  wider 
area  than  the  head  of  the  sinner.  Woman's  tra- 
vail and  subjection  to  her  husband,1  and  man's 
labor  and  sorrow  in  bread-winning,  are  due  to 
their  guilty  course.  The  earth  also  was  withered 
with  its  curse  ;  not  that  the  earth  is  a  person  to 
feel  shame  or  to  suffer  a  penalty,  but,  being  at  the 
first  "very  good,"  as  a  subject  and  servant  of 
man,  it  now  is  blighted  with  its  Creator's  curse, 
not  for  its  own  sake,  but  for  man's,  its  false  and 
disobedient  master's  sake.  The  instrument  shall 
blister  the  hand  of  the  workman ;  the  food  shall 
poison  the  mouth  of  the  eater.  No  more  volun- 
teer crops  shall  spring  forth  from  the  ground  to 
feed  the  hunger  of  guilty  man ;  where  had  grown 
up  "  every  tree  that  is  pleasant  to  the  sight  and 
good  for  food,"2  thorns  and  thistles  shall  now 
come  forth.  By  the  sweat  of  his  face  shall  man 
earn  his  bread  till  he  return  unto  the  ground. 
Mortality  has  smitten  him,  and  he  is  to  return  to 
the  dust  whence  he  came. 

This  is  the  ruined  condition  of  God's  image  in 
man  and  the  present  state  of  his  "very  good" 
world.  This  is  sinful  man  in  a  sinful  world ;  that 
is  to  say,  this  is  sinning  man  in  a  world  blighted 
by  sin.  The  organic  unity  of  mankind  links  the 
1  Ibid.,  3:  16.  2  Ibid.,  2:  9. 


164  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

race  into  one,  and  heredity  makes  one  of  many, 
e  pluribus  unum,  in  the  blighted  destinies  of  the 
First  Man. 

The  world  is  thrown  into  confusion.  Its  order 
becomes  disorder;  its  beauty  hideous  dispropor- 
tion; its  design  jarring  maladjustment,  and  its 
harmonies  grating  discords.  The  cosmos  is  dis- 
organized, decosmized ;  it  seems  a  chaos.  It 
must  not  be  understood  that  man  is  wholly  de- 
throned nor  the  cosmos  wholly  deranged  and  dis- 
organized. The  old  relation  is  not  destroyed;  it  is 
disturbed,  thrown  out  of  poise.  Fallen  man  is 
man  still,  but  he  is  man  shorn  of  his  noblest  pre- 
rogatives and  highest  powers.  His  faculty  for 
fellowship  with  God  is  blighted  by  his  conscious- 
ness of  guilt;  his  innocence  is  clouded  by  his 
experiential  knowledge  of  what  he  had  been  far 
wiser  if  he  had  never  known  ;  and  his  whole  being, 
body  and  soul,  is  in  the  grip  of  God's  inexorable 
executioner,  the  threatened  death.  Still  he  breathes 
the  breath  of  life ;  his  senses  are  not  dead ;  his 
intellect  survives;  his  rational  powers,  though 
affected,  are  not  extinct.  Yet  all  of  these  are 
blistered  by  the  withering  scorch  of  sin.  Only 
his  spiritual  nature,  that  which  above  all  consti- 
tuted him  in  the  image  of  his  Creator,  the  link 
that  bound  him  in  loving  union  with  Him,  is  atro- 


MAN  AS  FACTOR  IN  THE  COSMOS         165 

phied  and  broken.  All  this  too  is  purely  his  own 
work.  He  blames  himself  for  it,  and  therein  is  the 
keenest  pungency  of  the  curse.  St.  Augustine 
says :  "  Man's  nature,  indeed,  was  created  at  first 
faultless  and  without  sin  ;  but  that  nature  of  man 
in  which  every  one  is  born  from  Adam,  now  wants 
the  Physician,  because  it  is  not  sound.  All  good 
qualities,  no  doubt,  which  it  still  possesses  in  its 
make,  life,  senses,  intellect,  it  has  of  the  Most 
High  God  its  Creator  and  Maker.  But  the  flaw 
which  darkens  and  weakens  all  those  natural 
goods,  so  that  it  has  need  of  illumination  and  heal- 
ing, it  has  not  contracted  from  its  blameless 
Creator,  but  from  that  original  sin  which  it  com- 
mitted by  free  will.  "  ' 

Fallen  man's  relation  to  the  cosmos  is  not  so 
much  destroyed  as  disturbed.  He  is  a  dis- 
crowned king ;  an  emperor  whose  scepter  is 
smirched  and  broken.  No  man  can  know  how 
different  from  the  present  regime  would  have  been 
sinless  man's  dominion  over  the  creatures,  over 
the  forces  of  nature,  over  the  laws  of  the  cosmos, 
if  Tcrtullian's  "  Interloper "  had  not  invaded. 
Lord  Bacon  has  somewhere  said  that  if  we  would 
master  nature  we  must  learn  to  obey  her  laws. 
Modern  science  is  not  so  much  a  gain  in  its  dis- 

1  Dc  Natura  et  Gra/ia,  chap.  iii. 


1 66  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

coveiy  of  nature's  secrets  as  in  its  recovery  of 
nature's  services.  The  advancement  of  material 
civilization  is  largely  only  the  better  adjusting  of 
nature's  methods  to  man's  needs.  Some  of  us 
heard  Lord  Kelvin  say  at  the  brilliant  celebration 
of  the  jubilee  of  his  connection  with  the  Univer- 
sity of  Glasgow  that  in  all  his  fifty  years  of  hard 
work  in  the  study  of  the  laws  of  matter,  he  had 
only  been  able  to  learn  a  few  of  nature's  "  tricks." 
As  the  Lord  Kelvins  discover  these  "tricks," 
men  come  to  avail  themselves  of  them,  and  so 
more  and  more  come  to  let  nature  do  their  work 
for  them.  Who  knows  what  would  have  been, — 
who  knows  what,  in  the  coming  developments  of 
a  beneficent  Christian  civilization,  yet  shall  be, 
the  facilities,  the  possibilities,  and  the  achievements 
of  man  as  he  succeeds  in  getting  back  en  rapport 
with  the  vast  and  varied  and  fertile  kingdoms  of 
nature,  animate  and  inanimate,  over  which,  as 
originally  ordered,  he  was  given  the  dominion? 
Now  we  are  beginning  to  see  why  it  is  that 
nature,  though  beautiful  and  orderly  at  the  first, 
is  now  so  often  opaque  of  beauty  and  doubtful 
of  design.  The  world  we  see  is  not  God's  world, 
as  God  made  it.  Weeds  and  thistles,  killing  frosts 
and  blighting  mildews,  venomous  rattlesnakes 
and    destructive    coddling-moths,    cyclones    and 


MAN  AS  FACTOR  IN  THE  COSMOS         167 

earthquakes,  child-birth  pains  and  labor  strikes, 
wasting  disease  and  tardy  but  sure-footed  death ; 
— all  these  belong  to  a  world  which  the  blight  of 
sin  has  cursed.  Whether  or  not  some  of  these, 
and  how  many,  would  have  marked  a  cosmical 
career  unmarred  by  sin,  the  scientist  is  as  impo- 
tent as  the  philosopher  to  say.  Not  that  the 
objective  forces  would  not  have  been  the  same; 
not  that  the  laws  that  regulate  their  action  would 
have  been  different;  but,  what  counts  for  more 
than  everything  else,  man's  relation  to  all  these 
things  would  have  been  entirely  different.  In  the 
world  as  God  made  it,  we  would  have  ruled  nature 
and  might  have  summoned  her  facile  forces  for 
our  willing  service. 

We  are  now  in  position  to  understand  how  it 
is  that  the  idealistic  world-framer  fails  to  find  the 
world  which  he  has  been  fancying.  If  sin  had  not 
upset  things,  the  world  would  have  been  a  tran- 
script of  the  ideal.  That  disturbance  both  soiled 
the  ideal  and  obscured  man's  vision  for  seeing  it. 
This  is  why  men  cannot  sit  indoors  and  study 
natural  science ;  this  is  why  Spinoza's  pet  theory 
that  the  world  is  but  the  skeleton  of  his  geomet- 
rical and  ethical  formulae,  and  Hegel's  notion  that 
human  history  is  the  unfolding  of  a  purely  rational 
plan,  are  chimerical ;  this  is  why  the  philosopher 


168  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

says,  too  strongly,  that  it  is  of  the  very  nature 
of  the  real  that  it  fall  short  of  the  ideal,  and  why 
the  poet  can  say  not  only  that 

"Among  themselves  all  things 
Have  order;  and  from  hence  the  form,  which  makes 
The  universe  resemble  God  ;"' 

but  also, 

"  Yet  is  it  true, 
That  as  ofttimes  but  ill  accords  the  form 
To  the  design  of  art,  through  sluggishness 
Of  unreplying  matter,  so  this  course 
Is  sometimes  quitted  by  the  creature,  who 
Hath  power  directed  thus,  to  bend  elsewhere; 
As  from  a  cloud  the  fire  is  seen  to  fall, 
From  its  original  impulse  warp'd,  to  earth, 
By  vicious  fondness.  "2j 

The  cause  of  the  discrepancy  between  the  cosmos 
and  the  Logos,  between  the  cosmical  and  the 
rational,  between  the  real  and  the  ideal,  is  Sin. 

In  coming  up  to  this  fous  ct  origo  of  the  world's 
disorder  and  distress,  we  are  not  so  foolish  as  to 
imagine  for  one  moment  that  we  have  solved  any 
ultimate  problems,  though  we  do  believe  that  we 
have  escaped  some  grave   difficulties.     We  have 

1  Dante's  The  Vision;  Paradise,  Canto  I.,  lines  100-103. 
Cary's   trans. 

2  Ibid.,  Canto  I.,  lines  124-131. 


MAN  AS  FACTOR  IN  THE  COSMOS         169 

already  seen  that  it  is  of  the  very  nature  of  sin 
that  it  cannot  yield  itself  to  rational  solutions,  and 
its  influences  in  the  world  of  man,  like  the  princi- 
ple whence  they  spring,  are  likewise  befogging 
and  confusing.  There  are,  however,  two  or  three 
questions  sufficiently  obvious  and  important  to 
warrant  our  giving  the  remainder  of  this  hour  to 
their  statement  and  consideration. 

And,  first  of  all,  we  shall  be  required  to  state 
what  effect  this  view  will  have  upon  the  idea  of 
Natural  Theology.  If  nature  is  turned  upside 
down,  then  can  nature  teach  religion  ?  Is  nature 
orthodox  or  heretic  ?  Is  Milton  right  in  saying 
so  tersely,  "  God  and  Nature  bid  the  same  "  ?  ! 

Let  it  be  carefully  noted  that  we  have  not  said 
that  the  order  of  nature  is  destroyed,  but  only  that 
it  is  disturbed.  If  the  cosmos  were  totally  over- 
thrown, then  Natural  Theology  were  gone ;  just 
as,  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  cosmos  were  entirely 
undisturbed,  then  Natural  Theology  would  be  in- 
fallible and  errorless.  But  it  is  neither  the  one 
nor  the  other ;  it  is  disquieted,  disordered,  meas- 
urably disorganized. 

No,  there  is  no  contradiction  in  speaking  of  a 
disordered  order.  There  may  be  discords  in  a 
melody ;  there  may  be  blemishes  in  a  thing  of 

1  Paradise  Lost,  Book  VI. 


170  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

beauty ;  there  may  be  lapses  in  sound  reasoning. 
The  effect  of  sin  is  not  the  destruction  of  the 
cosmos,  but  of  the  perfection  of  the  cosmos. 
The  harmonics  of  nature  survive,  but  they  are 
muffled  and  modified;  her  beauties  can  be  seen, 
but  they  are  veiled  and  marred ;  her  rationality 
is  discernible,  but  there  are  not  a  few  monstrosities 
and  absurdities  to  throw  the  mind  off  the  search. 
And  we  must  say  that  the  histoiy  of  Natural  The- 
ology is  exactly  what  we  should  expect  it  to  be, 
upon  this  view.  Men  have  differed  very  widely  in 
estimating  its  evidence  and  fixing  its  value.  Athe- 
ism sees  the  disorder  only,  and  is  blind  to  the 
order;  it  sees  the  sun-spots,  but  is  blind  to  the  sun. 
Deism  sees  in  the  world-order  the  photograph 
of  the  divine  thought,  and  so  declines  any  further 
manifestation  of  the  Divine  as  a  gratuity  or  an 
impertinence.  A  Newman  believes  that  Natural 
Theology  alone  leads  straightway  to  infidelity, 
while  a  Ritschl  denies  it  altogether  in  the  interest 
of  a  true  religion.  Such  a  diversity  of  judgment 
would  hardly  be  possible  if  the  cosmos  were 
either  purely  rational  and  ethical,  or  wholly  irra- 
tional and  non-ethical. 

Besides,  we  are  not  to  forget  that  the  mind  of 
man,  which  we  are  now  regarding  as  only  a  factor  in 
the  cosmos,  is  deeply  affected  by  this  sin-wrought 


MAN  AS  FACTOR  IN  THE  COSMOS         171 

disturbance.  Its  moral  relation  to  its  environ- 
ment is  vitiated.  The  man  who  wants  to  see  the 
truth  of  God  is  the  man  who  will  most  likely  see 
it,  either  in  the  world  or  in  the  Book.  The 
heavens  declare  His  glory,  but  while  one  astrono- 
mer says  it  is  God's  glory  which  he  sees,  another 
insists  that  it  is  the  glory  of  La  Place.  It  is  not 
that  the  invisible  things  of  God  are  not  to  be 
clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the  things  that 
are  made;  it  is  because  men,  knowing  God, 
glorified  Him  not  as  God,  but  became  vain  in 
their  imaginations  and  their  foolish  heart  was 
darkened."  l 

We  believe  there  is  a  gospel  of  the  cosmos, 
and  that  it  is  the  gospel  of  God.  But  it  is  an 
obscured  gospel,  and  men's  eyes  are  holden  that 
they  cannot  read  it.  Its  lines  are  blurred,  its 
form  is  marred ;  or,  to  say  the  very  same  thing, 
from  the  view-point  of  men's  discerning  faculties, 
their  eyes  are  blinded,  their  ears  are  heavy,  their 
hearts  are  unresponsive. 

The  second  question  we  must  face  is  the  al- 
leged crime  of  having  abandoned  the  positions  of 
modern  science  in  the  view  presented.  We  shall 
be  reminded  that  the  cosmos  is  subject  to  laws 
and  forces  which  are  neither  contingent  upon  such 

1  Romans  I  :  19,  20. 


172  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

a  mere  incident  as  human  choice  nor  disturbed  by 
it.  The  objectivity  of  the  world  is  beyond  the 
blighting  touch  of  man,  and,  it  may  be  said,  we 
exaggerate  the  consequent  effect  of  sin. 

In  this  matter  very  much  will  depend  upon 
what  we  think  of  the  scope  and  infallibility  of 
science.  We  mean  no  disrespect  to  the  scientist 
when  we  say  that,  if  he  demurs  to  the  theo- 
logian's meddling  with  his  work,  the  rule  should 
work  both  ways.  Not  that  there  is  any  partition 
between  their  departments,  for  there  cannot  be. 
But  in  the  distribution  of  the  work  among  the 
specialists,  we  understand  that  the  scientist  is 
busied  with  finding  and  telling  what  is,  and  the 
theologian  is  engaged  in  the  work  of  accounting 
for  what  he  finds.  When  the  scientist  throws 
away  his  instruments  and  begins  with  his  infer- 
ences, he  ceases  to  be  a  scientist,  and  he  ceases  to 
be  entitled  to  our  superior  respect.  We  have  yet 
to  learn  that  science  has  ever  found  an  account- 
ing for  the  awful  fact  with  which  we  are  now 
wrestling;  its  latest  attempt  is  to  do  so  by  deny- 
ing it.  We  have  also  to  learn  yet  that  science 
has  really  found  anything  which  is  irreconcilable 
with  the  Bible  view  which  we  accept.  We  are 
not  resuscitating  the  Miltonic  Eden  and  Adam 
as  needing  no  revision  ;  we  are  not  insisting  that 


MAN  AS  FACTOR  IN  THE  COSMOS         173 

all  the  traditional  interpretations  of  biblical  narra- 
tives are  to  stand ;  we  are  only  now  ready  to 
affirm  our  faith  that  there  remaineth  yet  much 
land  for  science  to  possess,  and  that  when  science 
gets  all  the  facts — if  it  ever  does — and  lays  them 
down  beside  the  chapters  of  Genesis  which  pur- 
port to  give  an  account  of  the  first  introduction 
of  sin  into  our  world,  the  two  showings  will 
not  only  harmonize,  but  will  also  interpret  and 
illuminate  each  other. 

Science  may  find  and  state  facts,  but  it  is  most 
scientific  when  it  is  most  modest  in  going  farther. 
The  average  scientist  is  a  very  amateur  phi- 
losopher, and,  when  he  tries  his  hand  at  theology, 
he  generally  justifies  the  condemnations  which  he 
is  wont  to  pour  out  on  it.  Professor  Orr  is  well 
within  bounds  when  he  says,  "  Science  may  affirm, 
it  can  certainly  never  prove,  that  the  world  is 
in  a  normal  state  in  these  respects,  or  that,  even 
under  existing  laws,  a  better  balance  of  harmony 
could  not  be  maintained  had  the  Creator  so 
willed  it."1 

A  third  question  which  we  shall  be  challenged 
to  tackle  is  that  of  the  place  and  meaning  of 
death  in  our  theory.     It  must  be  conceded  that 

1  V'/n-  Christian  View  of  God  and  (he  World,  p.  22S.  Italics 
his. 


174  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

this  is  no  easy  question.  Death  is  the  threatened 
penalty  of  sin ;  sin  came,  and  consequently  death 
followed.  But  would  death  have  occurred  if  sin 
had  not?  In  the  first  place,  we  may  reply  that 
this  is  purely  an  idle  query.  The  existing  cos- 
mos is  a  unit,  and  sin  is  a  part  of  that  unit; 
a  cosmos  without  sin  would  have  had  an  en- 
tirely different  character  and  career.  Such  an 
"if"  carries  us  entirely  out  of  the  world;  that  is, 
into  another,  purely  hypothetical  world.  When  a 
certain  lad  was  asked  if  his  sister  liked  cheese,  he 
replied  that  he  had  no  sister ;  the  persistent  ques- 
tioner then  asked  him,  "  Well,  if  yoii  had  a  sister, 
would  she  like  cheese  ?  " 

The  question  is  twofold ;  it  applies  to  sub- 
human life  and  to  man.  Concerning  the  former 
there  are  mitigating  considerations.  There  is 
much  truth  suggested  by  Dr.  Newman  Smyth's 
remark,  "  Death  is  a  curse  of  no  animal  except 
man."2  We  put  great  stress  on  Mr.  Alfred  Rus- 
sell Wallace's  argument  that  the  lower  animals 
do  not  know  pain  as  we  do.  They  take  things  as 
they  come ;  they  are  not  wise  enough  to  worry, 
or,  shall  we  say  they  are  too  wise  ?  Professor 
Shalcr  contributes  an  important  truth  when  he 
reminds  us  that,  economically  regarded,  not  death 
i  77/,?  Place  of  Death  in  Evolution,  p.  157. 


MAN  AS  FACTOR  IN  THE  COSMOS         175 

but  premature  death  is  the  evil.1  The  brute  is 
hardly  haunted  by  dread  of  death.  Professor 
Shaler  says :  "  There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that 
the  idea  of  the  end  of  their  individuality  ever 
occurs  to  them  ....  If  they  have  any  idea 
of  their  condition,  [i.  c,  that  of  their  dead  com- 
panions], it  is,  most  likely,  that  they  are  sleeping 
....  It  is,  in  effect,  impossible  that  death  can 
have  any  meaning  to  brutes,  save  it  may  be  in  the 
case  of  the  higher  apes  and  with  the  humanized 
dog.  We  see  nothing  in  their  acts  that  leads  us 
to  suppose  that  they  find  in  it  matter  for  ques- 
tioning." 2  The  experience  of  death  itself,  arlicu- 
lum  mortis,  is  not  regarded  as  distressing  or  pain- 
ful in  the  case  of  any  living  thing ;  and,  accord- 
ingly, if  in  the  brute-world  all  apprehensive 
anticipations  and  dreadful  associations  are  lack- 
ing, the  difficulties  of  the  problem  are  minimized  ; 
and  when  we  remember  that,  as  a  fact,  death 
is  a  servant  of  life,  and  that  it  is  a  part  of  the 
economy  of  the  whole  course  of  the  world,  we 
must  agree  that  no  serious  objection  remains  in 
our  way. 

But   is   it  not   different  with   humanity?     We 

1  The  Individual ;  A  Study  of  Life  and  Death,  by  Nathaniel 
Southgate  Shaler.     See  pp.  226-228. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  193-4. 


176  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

doubt  not  for  an  instant  that  man,  as  man,  is 
mortal.  His  mortality  is  not  contingent  upon 
his  having  sinned.  But  what  is  mortality?  St. 
Augustine  distinguishes  between  mortale  (capable 
of  dying),  mortuum  (dead),  and  moriturus  (des- 
tined to  die).1  Sinless  man  was  capable  of  dying, 
but  it  is  an  entirely  different  question  whether  he 
was  destined  to  die.  Enoch  and  Elijah  were 
mortal,  but  they  never  died.  Mortality  is  not 
certainty  of  death ;  it  is  liability  to  death.  Our 
Lord  became  human ;  nevertheless,  he  might 
have  escaped  the  cross.  It  was  an  additional, 
voluntary  humiliation  for  our  sakes.  Conceiva- 
bly, he  might  have  ascended  into  the  heavens 
before  the  awful  tragedy  of  Calvary  had  been 
enacted.  Death,  as  we  sinful  men  know  it,  is  not 
the  only  imaginable  gateway  from  earth  to  heaven. 
"The  sting  of  death  is  sin;"2  accordingly,  in  a 
world  without  sin,  death  is  stingless  and  the  grave 
gets  no  victory.  In  an  Edenic  state  of  innocence 
and  communion  with  God,  wholly  untouched  and 
uncursed  by  sin,  death  would  have  been  lacking 
in  every  particular  that  makes  it  Death  to  us.  On 
the  lips  of  pure  and  stainless  mortals  that  cruel 
name  could  carry  no  horrors,  that  dreaded  foe  is 

1  De  Peccatomm  Mentis  el  Rcmissioue,  chap.  iii. 

2  I  Cor.  IS  :  56. 


MAN  AS  FACTOR  IN  THE  COSMOS         177 

stripped  of  every  power  to  destroy  and  to  in- 
timidate. 

This  conception  of  death  is  fully  warranted  by 
the  Christian  faith  concerning  the  changes  wrought 
upon  it  by  the  grace  of  God.  The  child  of  God 
has  been  delivered  from  a  lifelong  bondage 
through  fear  of  death.1  Grace  takes  away  sin, 
and  as  sin  is  the  sting  of  death,  death  no  longer 
has  its  terrors.  Dr.  Smith  says,  in  speaking  of 
the  sinful  state  of  man,  "  Death  becomes,  as  it  was 
not  originally,  a  terror  and  a  curse;  it  wears 
henceforth  a  punitive  aspect  to  man's  guilty  con- 
science."2 The  cause  of  the  curse,  not  of  the  fact 
of  death,  is  sin;  the  cause  is  removed  and  the 
effect  follows ;  the  curse  is  gone  and  the  fact 
remains;  but,  the  curseless  death  is  a  blessed 
euthanasia,  a  glorious  victory. 

We  cannot  see  why  cosmological  disorders 
should  be  regarded  as  void  of  ethical  bearings, 
or  why  natural  evil,  in  the  sphere  of  man,  should 
be  considered  exclusively  as  natural.  Dr.  Julius 
Miiller  is  doubtless  correct  in  thinking  that  the- 
ology "  must  give  up  the  notion  of  fully  answering 
all  the  questions  which  here  suggest  themselves, 
if  it  would  avoid  unpleasant  complications  with 

1  Hebrews  2  :  14,  15. 

2  The  Place  of  Death  in  Evolution,  p.  145. 
12 


178  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

the  natural  sciences  in  their  various  branches 
and  phases  of  development."  '  Nevertheless,  we 
do  believe  that  a  careful  consideration  of  the 
whole  subject  diminishes  the  difficulties  of  the 
problem.  We  are  skeptical  concerning  Horace 
Bushnell's  theory  of  the  "  anticipative  conse- 
quences "  of  sin,2  for  that  seems  to  us  to  make 
nature  unnature,  not  now  only,  but  from  the  very 
beginning.  The  Apostle  Paul  explicitly  tells  us 
that  nature  is  a  fallen  sufferer  together  with  man, 
on  account  of  sin.3  Professor  Orr,  quoting  Bishop 
Ellicott,  thinks  that  the  key  to  this  whole  classical 
passage  of  the  apostle  is  in  the  one  word  "  vanity  " 
[fxazaiorr]^),  profitlessness,  arrested  development, 
defeated  end.  We  can  hardly  conceive  how  a 
world  whose  chief  factor  has  gone  wrong  could 
be  a  success  in  accomplishing  its  design.  Man  is 
corrupt,  and  the  world  of  which  he  is  a  part  and 
over  which  he  is  given  dominion  catches  the  con- 
tagion. Its  forces  are  perverted  to  the  evil  pur- 
poses of  its  fallen  head. 

Only  one  more  question,  we  can  undertake  now 
to  consider.     If  man  is  wrong,  what  becomes  of 

1  The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Sin,  vol.  ii.,  p  287. 

2  Nature  and  the  Supernatural,  chap,  vii.,  especially  pp.  215, 
216. 

3  Romans  8  :  19-23. 


MAN  AS  FACTOR  IN  THE  COSMOS         179 

his  ideas  of  right  and  wrong?  Must  natural 
ethics  go  down  as  some  say  natural  theology  has 
gone  ?  "  If  the  light  which  is  in  us  be  darkness, 
then  how  great  is  that  darkness?" 

Alas,  here  too  we  find  the  evil  stroke  of  sin. 
In  clearest  lights  there  remains  much  confusion. 
It  is  not  that  sinful  man's  ideals  are  wrong,  but 
that  he  gets  them  and  holds  them  wrong. 
Human  nature,  as  well  as  extra-human  nature,  is 
unnatural.  The  word  nature  is  ambiguous.  Man 
is  by  nature  finite,  and  this  is  all  right ;  man  is  by 
nature  sinful,  and  this  is  all  wrong.  Human  na- 
ture, in  so  far  as  it  is  a  factor  in  the  cosmos,  is 
perverted  and  out  of  joint.  The  natural  man  is 
unnatural.  Nature,  without  or  within,  is  not  a 
sound  teacher  of  ethics.  Raptures  over  the  beau- 
ties and  sanctities  of  nature  suffer  cruel  disillu- 
sionment by  looking  at  the  facts.  Naturam  prose- 
qui is  a  misleading  motto  for  noblest  achieve- 
ment. Man's  soul  is  de  facto  the  seat  of  deep 
disorder.  We  very  much  wish  that  some  com- 
petent writer  would  discuss  the  theodicy  of  human 
instinct.  Men's  propensities,  impulses,  passions, 
instincts,  mislead.  They  need  saving  from  them- 
selves. This  truth  is  the  fundamental  presuppo- 
sition of  the  element  of  rescue  in  all  Christian 
work. 


i8o  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

And  yet  here  again  we  must  not  forget  that  the 
overthrow  is  not  absolute  and  complete.  Sinful 
men  have  their  ideals,  though  consciously  unreal- 
ized. Sin  is  against  God,  just  as  crime  is  against 
the  State ;  and  vice  is  against  both  God  and  self.1 
Vice,  that  is  to  say,  is  an  offense  against  the  ideal 
which  is  embodied  in  the  very  nature  of  the 
offender.  This  ideal  may  be  wholly  absent  from 
the  consciousness  of  the  vicious  man,  but  it  is  in 
the  very  nature  of  the  man,  nevertheless.  It  is 
his  Creator's  ideal,  if  not  his  own.  If  the  first 
man  had  never  sinned,  he  would  have  realized  that 
ideal,  and  would  have  continued  "  very  good." 
The  author  of  the  ideal  which  vice  violates  is 
God,  so  that  all  vice  is,  therefore,  sin.  Vice  de- 
feats what  Dr.  James  Kidd  calls  "self-realiza- 
tion " ; 2  by  which  he  means  "  the  fulfillment  of 
the  design  embodied  in  the  self,  the  development 
of  the  germ  that  lies  in  our  being."  A  natural 
morality  that  would  exact  and  enable  this  "  self- 
realization  "  would  answer  every  demand  of  God 
or  man.  But,  alas,  men  substitute  for  this  what 
the  same  helpful  author  calls  "  self-gratification," 
that  is,  the  appeasing  of  a  passing  appetite  or  de- 

1  Principal  Fairbairn's  Place  of  Christ  in  Modern  Theology, 
p.  452. 

2  Morality  and  Religion,  pp.  39-40. 


MAN  AS  FACTOR  IN  THE  COSMOS         181 

sire.  All  depends  upon  which  self  it  is.  All  the 
distance  between  Sodom  and  the  New  Jerusalem 
lies  between  following  the  propensities  of  the  self 
that  is  and  striving  to  realize  the  self  that  ought 
to  be. 

And  here  we  come  upon  a  thought  of  deepest 
interest  in  modern  literature  and  life.  The  con- 
flict is  between  self-gratification  and  self-realiza- 
tion. There  is  a  fadeless  ideal  in  lowest  depths 
often  conscious  to  the  darkened  mind,  for 

"  In  even  savage  bosoms, 
There  are  longings,  yearnings,  strivings 
For  the  good  they  comprehend  not." 

The  present  appetite,  however,  too  often  obscures 
the  remote  ideal.  Shakespeare  counsels  self-real- 
ization when  he  says,  "  To  thine  own  self  be  true, 
and  .  .  .  thou  canst  not  then  be  false  to  any 
man."  Too  easily  and  too  often  we  make  our 
meanness  the  franchise  for  our  being  mean.  We 
say  with  the  garrulous  old  Bishop  Blougram, 

"  My  business  is  not  to  remake  myself." 

The  darkest  sins  in  the  history  of  man  have 
boasted  the  sanctions  of  the  human  breast.  The 
blackest  deeds  of  lust  and  hate  and  cruelty  and 
greed  have  been  coined  in  the  mint  of  "  human 


1 82  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

nature."  Modern  fiction  reeks  with  this  false 
gospel  of  self-gratification.  The  culprit's  answer 
to  every  charge  is,  "  I  am  built  that  way."  Tem- 
per is  substituted  for  will,  and  temperament  for 
character.  Realism  in  art,  with  all  its  salacious 
appeals  and  vice-breeding  influences,  is  its  hellish 
spawn.  Rcnan  was  a  brilliant  high  priest  at  this 
altar  of  instinctive  lubricity.  Tess  of  the  D'Ur- 
bervilles  breaks  an  accepted  social  law,  but  obeyed 
a  natural  impulse,  and,  although  men  said  she  had 
fallen  from  her  innocence,  men  lied ;  Tess  is  as 
guiltless  "  as  the  sleeping  birds  in  the  hedges,  or 
the  skipping  rabbits  on  a  moon-lit  warren."  She 
has  her  philosophy,  and  these  are  her  words: 
"  Feelings  are  feelings.  I  won't  be  a  hypocrite 
any  longer,  so  there !  ....  I  must  be  as  I 
was  born."  Again  and  again  does  Mr.  Hardy 
apologize  for  adultery  and  seduction  because  they 
have  the  sanction  of  "  impulse." l 

We  shall  hope  to  see  by  and  by  that,  paradox- 
ical as  it  may  sound,  self-realization  is  attained  only 
by  self-humiliation ;  that  the  human  heart  is  de- 
ceitful and  desperately  wicked ;  that  the  first  move 
to  be  made  in  righting  up  a  wrong  world  is  to 
give  to  man  a  clean  heart  and  a  right  spirit ;  that 

1  See  Dr.  S.  Law  Wilson's  Theology  of  Modern  Literature, 
pp.  381-408. 


MAN  AS  FACTOR  IN  THE  COSMOS         183 

the  way  to  honor  and  success  is  not  to  gratify  self 
and  take  the  pleasure  of  the  hour,  but  to  deny 
self  and  take  up  the  cross  that  awaits  its  bearer; 
that  it  is  a  delusive  and  superficial  philosophy 
which  has  for  its  motto,  Naturam  prosequi ;  it  is 
the  philosophy  of  present  struggle  and  of  the 
final  victory  which  has  for  its  motto,  Christum 
prosequi. 


LECTURE    VI 

MAN   AS   SPECTATOR   OF  THE 
COSMOS 


LECTURE  VI 

MAN  AS  SPECTATOR  OF  THE  COSMOS 

In  the  last  lecture  we  considered  man  as  a  citi- 
zen of  the  cosmical  commonwealth.  In  this  we  are 
to  study  him  as  an  outsider.  We  shall  see  him 
akin  to  those  of  whom  we  are  told 

"  Others  sat  apart  on  a  hill  retired, 
In  thoughts  more  elevate,  and  reasoned  high 
Of  providence,  foreknowledge,  will,  and  fate." 

Only  man  can  do  this.  Herein  is  the  distinguish- 
ing dignity  of  his  nature.  The  brute  is  conscious, 
but  not  self-conscious.  A  dreaming  man  is  con- 
scious, but  unself-conscious.  It  is  a  marvel  that 
man  can  abstract  himself  from  himself ;  make  him- 
self both  scrutinizing  scientist  and  the  passive  ob- 
ject of  his  scrutiny.  He  can  place  himself  under 
his  own  glass  and  stand  at  one  end  and  look 
through  the  glass  while  he  lies  at  the  other  end 
and  is  looked  at.  Only  man  can  climb  higher 
than  himself  and  look  down  upon  himself.  Only 
man  can  bring  his  scientific  knowledge  to  the  test 
of  his  consciousness,  not  only,  but  also  bring  his 
consciousness  to  the  test  of  his  scientific  knowl- 

187 


1 88  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

edge.  He  is  both  seer  and  seen ;  both  knower 
and  known.  "  Know  thyself"  is  a  command  as 
impossible  to  beasts  as  it  is  worthy  of  man.  An- 
thropology is  reflective  human  self-knowledge, 
and,  as  such,  it  is  a  chapter  in  theology ;  but  the 
ornithology  of  a  college  of  birds  or  the  ichthyology 
of  a  college  of  fishes  would  be  but  the  extrava- 
ganza of  a  fable.  So  that  when  man  lays  out  for 
himself  to  know  the  cosmos  of  which  he  is  a  part, 
and  to  know  himself  as  knowing  the  cosmos,  he 
has  set  for  himself  a  task  in  which  no  other  earth- 
dweller  can  have  a  share. 

Not  that  man  is  the  only  knower  on  the  earth  ; 
but  he  is  the  only  self-knower,  and  self-knowledge 
is  a  condition  of  truest  knowledge.  No  complete 
knowledge  of  the  cosmos  is  possible  without  a 
knowledge  of  the  knowing  self,  which  is  an  essen- 
tial part  of  the  world  that  is  known. 

Brutes  have  been  said  to  be  "  men  dreaming," 
and  the  remark  is  suggestively  accurate.  Dream- 
ing men  are  conscious,  but  they  are  not  conscious 
of  themselves  as  dreaming.  This  is  why  so  little 
can  be  known  of  the  psychology  of  dreams.  After 
we  awake  we  remember  the  dream  if,  indeed,  the 
whole  dream  be  anything  more  than  a  panoramic 
flash  at  the  moment  of  our  waking.  A  dreamer 
may  "  dream  that  he  has  been  dreaming  " ;  he  may 


MAN  AS  SPECTATOR  OF  THE  COSMOS     189 

even  dream  that  he  is  dreaming ;  but  the  dream- 
ing self  is,  ipso  facto,  incapacitated  for  that  self- 
inspection  which  is  essential  to  completest  knowl- 
edge. Beasts  know,  but  they  do  not  know  that 
they  know.  Professor  James,  of  Harvard,  says : 
"  To  know  is  one  thing,  and  to  know  for  certain 
that  we  know  is  another.  One  may  hold  to  the 
first  being  possible  without  the  second."  l  Self- 
knowledge  conditions  all  knowledge  of  man  which 
is  most  worthy  of  the  name. 

The  eye  of  the  horse,  standing  upon  an  emi- 
nence and  overlooking  a  beautiful  plain,  may  mirror 
the  outstretching  scene  perfectly,  as  does  the  eye 
of  the  artist  who  is  enchanted  with  the  loveliness 
of  the  outlook.  But  there  is  no  reason  to  believe 
that  the  horse  has  any  aesthetic  appreciation  of 
the  scenery.  Animals  form  percepts,  but  they 
stop  this  side  of  concepts.  They  deal  with  the 
concrete  and  individualized  ;  they  do  not  rise  to 
the  notion  of  the  abstract  or  the  universal.  My 
dog  can  not  only  see  and  hear,  probably  with  pre- 
terhuman keenness  and  accuracy,  but  afterwards 
he  can  remember  that  he  saw  and  heard,  and  pos- 
sibly that  he  relished  the  experience.  But  all  this 
is  too  naive  to  be  dignified  with  the  name  of  self- 
knowledge.  The  mental  energy  is  expended  upon 
xThe  Will  to  Believe,  p.  12.     Italics  his. 


190  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

the  object  without.  There  is  no  reflex  conscious- 
ness of  the  states  and  processes  of  the  self-know- 
ing, self-known  self. 

That  is  to  say,  man  is  the  only  terrestrial  sci- 
entist. Science  is  organized,  classified  knowledge. 
The  difference  between  scientific  knowledge  and 
common  knowledge  is  not  that  the  one  is  the  real 
thing  and  the  other  is  not,  but  that  the  one  is  re- 
lated and  classified  knowledge,  and  the  other  is 
not.  The  farmer  knows  the  soil  as  well  as  the 
agriculturist ;  the  gardener  knows  flowers  perhaps 
better  than  the  botanist  does  ;  but  the  scientific 
knower  takes  into  the  account  the  whole  tract  of 
truth  involved  and  sees  the  soil  and  plants  as  re- 
lated to  each  other  and  to  himself.  It  has  been 
well  said  that  the  proper  object  of  science  is  all 
existing  things.  This  grand  unity  of  all  existing 
things  falls  into  three  parts,  namely,  what  lies  out- 
side of  the  knowing  subject,  the  knowing  subject 
himself,  and  the  consciousness  of  that  knowing 
subject.1 

All  knowledge  presupposes  an  affinity  between 
the  knowing  subject  and  the  object  known.  This 
fundamentally  important  principle  has  been  too 
often  set  forth  to  need  either  development  or 
defense.    It  is  the  sleeping  postulate  of  all  knowl- 

1  See  Kuyper's  Encyclopedia  of  Sacred  Theology,  p.  65. 


MAN  AS  SPECTATOR  OF  THE  COSMOS     191 

edge.  We  assume  a  radical  analogy  between  our- 
selves and  anything  which  we  try  to  know.  No 
writer  has  made  this  plainer  than  has  Professor 
Ladd,  of  Yale.  We  know  the  world  by  first  as- 
suming that  it  is  the  manifestation  of  another  self, 
an  alter  ego.  The  cosmos  is  knowable  only  because 
there  is  back  of  it  and  in  it  that  which  is  akin  to 
the  knower.  The  staunch  theologian  tells  us  that 
science  is  "  the  necessary  and  ever-continued  im- 
pulse in  the  human  mind  to  reflect  within  itself, 
the  cosmos,  ....  always  with  the  under- 
standing that  the  human  mind  is  capable  of  this 
by  reason  of  its  organic  affinity  to  its  object."1  So 
also  philosophy  from  the  standpoint  of  epistem- 
ology  says  :  "There  is  one  figurative  and  yet  valid 
and  true  way  of  representing  the  essential  features 
of  the  relation  of  knowledge  to  reality — one  and 
only  one  valid  and  true  way.  Human  cognition 
is  all  to  be  tmdcrstood  as  a  species  of  intercourse 
bctzuccn  minds." 2  And,  again,  in  words  which  are 
of  the  utmost  importance  to  the  theistic  thinker, 
"  Things  are  the  manifestation,  the  word  to  man, 
of  an  all-pervading  Will  and  Mind."3  And  once 
more,  swinging  around  to  the  view-point  of  pure 

*  Ibid.,  P.  S3. 

1  Professor  G.   T.   Ladd's  Philosophy  of  Knowledge,  p.  558. 
Italics  his.  8  Ibid.,  p.  606. 


192  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

metaphysics,  we  are  told  that  "  a  known  or  con- 
ceivable world  cannot  exist  as  a  total  Real,  except 
as  the  object  of  an  Absolute  Subject,  an  omnis- 
cient mind."1 

We  gladly  accept  this  philosophy.  If  it  gives 
us  a  ready-made  theism,  so  much  the  better  for 
that.  We  are  not  scared  when  we  find  sound 
philosophy  supporting  sound  theology  ;  it  is  just 
what  we  should  expect.  All  reality,  known  and 
knowable,  banks  up  against  a  Personality  who 
manifests  Himself  in  just  that  way.  Philosophy 
is  absurdity  if  an  implied  God  be  lacking.  The 
late  Clerk  Maxwell  said,  "  I  have  looked  into  most 
philosophical  systems,  and  I  have  seen  that  none 
will  work  without  a  God."  2  And  Lord  Bacon,  in 
his  famous  essay  on  Atheism,  well  says,  "  I  had 
rather  believe  all  the  fables  in  the  legend,  and  the 
Talmud,  and  the  Alcoran,  than  that  this  universal 
frame  is  without  a  mind."  3 

We  frankly  confess  that  we  desire  to  put  the 
greatest  emphasis  upon  this  theistic  philosophy  in 
the  development  of  our  thought.  If  it  seems  to 
some  to  lend  itself  too  readily  to  idealism  and 
its  too  frequent  theological  corollary,  pantheism, 

1  Ladd's  A  Theory  of  Reality,  pp.  504,  505. 

2  Life,  p.  391 ;  quoted  in  Smyth's  Place  of  Death  in  Evolution, 
p.  84.  *  Essay;  No.  16;    Of  Atheism. 


MAN  AS  SPECTATOR  OF  THE  COSMOS     193 

there  is  this  to  say :  we  have  already,  in  the  first 
lecture,  frankly  conceded  the  truth  in  idealism ; 
not  an  idealism  which  is  the  offspring  of  the  sensa- 
tional philosophy ;  not  the  Berkleian  idealism  which 
reduces  all  things  to  ideas  only;  not  a  mere  phe- 
nomenalism which  reduces  all  things  to  empty 
appearance ;  not  the  Hegelian  idealism  which 
makes  the  actual  world  only  the  airy  development 
of  the  ideal ;  but  that  sane,  rational,  and  illumi- 
nating idealism  which  regards  rationality  and 
morality  in  things  as  absolutely  impossible  with- 
out a  rational  and  moral  consciousness  in  which 
and  for  which  those  things  exist.1  If  the  world  is 
the  objective  manifestation  of  ideas,  then  those 
ideas  must  have  had  existence  in  a  preexisting 
consciousness.  This  idealism  is  involved  in  the 
doctrine  of  Final  Cause,  of  a  fore-ordering  Divine 
Government,  and  of  a  plan  whose  unfolding  is  the 
history  of  time.  It  is  the  idealism  of  the  poet 
who  sees  "  one  increasing  purpose "  running 
through  the  ages ;  it  is  the  idealism  of  the  philos- 
opher who  affirms  the  utter  meaninglessness  of  the 
thing  without  a  thought,  of  the  object  without  a 
subject ;  it  is  the  idealism  of  the  scientist  who 
reverently  reads  off  the  intelligible  forms  of  nature 

1  See  Professor  P.  P.  Powne'  s  Theory  of  Thought  and  Knowl- 
edge, p.  327. 
13 


1 94  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

which  have  been  molded  by  nature's  God;  it  is 
the  idealism  of  the  theologian  who  believes  that 
"  the  decrees  of  God  are  his  eternal  purpose, 
whereby  He  hath  foreordained  whatsoever  comes 
to  pass."  In  short,  as  we  see  it,  it  is  the  idealism 
which  is  the  necessary  philosophical  counterpart 
of  intelligent  Christian  theism. 

But  we  must  be  on  the  lookout  for  a  plausible 
objection  that  will  run  in  this  wise:  if  our  knowl- 
edge of  the  cosmos  is  really  intercourse  between 
persons,  then  man  and  God  must  be  the  persons  ; 
ergo,  the  cosmos  is  God.  And  here  we  are  again 
charged  with  pantheism.  It  is  worth  while  to 
consider  this  a  moment.  And  let  us  inquire 
wherein  consists  personal  intercourse.  We  com- 
monly say  that  it  may  be  either  immediate  or 
mediate ;  but  we  must  say  that  we  are  skeptical 
concerning  the  immediate.  According  to  Professor 
Royce,  immediacy  is  the  distinguishing  mark 
of  mysticism,  characterizing  the  relation  of  the 
knower  to  the  absolute.1  But  Recejac,  a  recent 
writer  on  the  subject,  insists,  quite  to  the  con- 
trary, that  mystical  knowledge  is  always  sym- 
bolical, and,  therefore,  is  never  immediate.2   Is  it  too 

1  The  World  and  the  Individual,  First  Series,  p.  80. 

2  The  Bases  of  the  Mystic  Knowledge ;  Eng.  trans.,  pp.  5,  44, 
120. 


MAN  AS  SPECTATOR  OF  THE  COSMOS     195 

much  to  say  that  all  intercourse  between  human 
persons  is  mediate  ?  We  are  not  experts  in  the 
occult  sciences  of  telepathy  and  suggestion,  but, 
even  granting  their  claim,  they  hardly  eliminate 
the  symbolical  element  from  their  processes. 
Words  are  symbols ;  facial  expressions  are  sym- 
bols ;  passive  silence  may  be,  in  certain  condi- 
tions, a  most  meaningful  symbol.  The  body,  the 
countenance,  the  posture,  the  gait,  are  symbols. 
A  non-symbolical  intercourse  between  human 
beings  is  very  rare,  if  possible  at  all.  The  body 
is  so  intimately  connected  with  the  person  that,  by 
a  figure  of  speech  so  common  that  we  forget  that 
it  is  one,  we  call  a  man's  body  his  person.  We  com- 
municate with  each  other  symbolically.  It  is  not  a 
spiritual  ego  conversing  with  spiritual  ego,  imme- 
diately, but  by  means  of  a  visible,  tangible  body 
going  through  certain  motions  in  the  presence  of 
another  body.  We  know  each  other's  thoughts 
by  means  of  each  other's  words,  spoken,  written, 
or  envisaged. 

As  with  man,  so  is  our  intercourse  with  God. 
His  book  is  a  symbol ;  the  sacraments  are  sym- 
bols ;  they  are  signs,  representations  of  truth  which 
is  to  be  conveyed.  It  is  not  necessary  to  argue 
that  all  communion  between  God  and  man  is 
mediate ;  we  only  argue  that  God  does  commune 


196  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

with  man  symbolically.  He  uses  symbols  with 
men ;  and  what  else  is  the  cosmos  than  such  a 
symbol?  Has  not  Professor  Ladd,  in  language 
quoted,  called  the  world  "  the  word  to  man  "  of 
the  all-pervading  Will  and  Mind  ?  It  is  not  yet 
the  Word  Incarnated,  but  only  the  Word  Imma- 
teriatcd. 

This  is  philosophy  meeting  theology  more  than 
halfway.  It  is  precisely  what  Turretin  calls 
Rcvclatio  naturalis.  It  regards  the  world  as  God's 
word  to  man.  The  world  is  not  God, — that  is 
pantheism ;  the  world  is  God's  symbol,  God's  reve- 
lation,— that  is  cosmical  theism.  The  highest 
self-revelations  of  God  to  the  human  race  have 
been  by  symbols.  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any 
time ;  no  man  can  see  Him  and  live.1  He  dwells 
in  "  light  which  no  man  can  approach  unto." 2 
He  manifests  His  thoughts  in  things,  His  will 
in  words,  His  majesty  in  mighty  works.  "  He 
spake  and  it  was  done;  He  commanded  and  it 
stood  fast." 3  The  flaming  sword,  the  shckinah, 
the  pillar  by  day  and  by  night,  were  God's  reve- 
lation to  man.  The  world  of  God  is  a  word  of 
God ;  the  cosmos  is  a  part  of  the  Logos.  The 
universe  is  a  symbol  of  God's  thought,  and  if  man 

1  Exodus  33  :  20  ;  Judges  13  :  22. 
2  1  Timothy  6  :  16.  8  Psalm  33  : 9. 


MAN  AS  SPECTATOR  OF  THE  COSMOS     197 

could  have  caught  and  held  its  meaning,  this 
cosmical  Logos  would  have  been  eloquent  with 
its  divine  meaning  and  luminous  with  its  messages 
of  wisdom  and  goodness. 

We  have  high  authority  for  thus  regarding  the 
Logos,  in  the  world.  Philo  called  the  world  "  the 
intelligible  word."  The  term  Logos  has  prevail- 
ingly a  revelatory  significance.  Dr.  Charles 
Bigg  tells  us  that  it  gathered  about  it  many  float- 
ing ideas  of  purely  symbolical  import ; l  and  Dr. 
George  T.  Purves  tells  us  that  while  6  Xoyo^  sig- 
nified both  ratio  and  oratio — the  latter  always  pre- 
supposing the  former — yet  in  biblical  Greek  it  has 
almost  exclusively  the  latter  meaning,  namely,  of 
verbum,  a  means  of  communication,  a  medium 
of  manifestation.2 

The  world  in  which  we  live,  then,  is  a  revelation 
from  God,  a  Logos.  It  is  an  oratio  because  it  is 
a  ratio.  This  is  what  gives  dignity  to  cosmical 
science ;  this  is  why  the  "  undevout  astronomer  is 
mad  " ;  this  is  why  the  reverent  student  of  science 
is  also  a  student  of  theology. 

But,  even  granting  that  the  world  is  the  mani- 
festation of  thought,  we  are  met  with  the  whole- 
sale  objection  that  man   cannot  really  know  the 

1  The  Christian  Platonists  of  Alexandria,  p.  15. 

2 See  Article  "Logos,"  in  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary. 


198  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

world  or  what  it  means.  This  is  the  challenge  of 
agnosticism.  It  is  the  final  writ  of  injunction 
against  all  intercourse  between  the  cosmos  and 
its  human  spectator.  In  its  broad  view,  it  is  in- 
nocent of  theological  implications.  Man  can 
know  religious  things  as  well  as  he  can  know  any- 
thing. Mr.  Spencer  denies  that  man  can  know  a 
book  or  a  house,  just  as  much  as  he  denies  that 
he  can  know  God.  Agnosticism  is  not  owing  to 
the  nature  of  the  object,  but  to  the  impotence  of 
the  mind.  Our  minds  were  not  made  for  knowing. 
However,  it  comes  to  the  same  thing  to  say  that  the 
thing  is  too  hard  for  the  mind  to  know  and  to  say 
that  the  mind  is  too  weak  to  know  it.  If  a  freight 
hand  cannot  lift  a  bar  of  iron,  the  difficulty  may 
be  overcome  either  by  increasing  his  strength  or 
by  lightening  the  bar.  We  could  as  well  put  the 
blame  on  the  iron  as  on  the  man.  So  agnosti- 
cism may  as  well  find  fault  with  the  thing  as  with 
the  thinker,  with  the  fact  as  with  the  faculty,  with 
the  cosmos  as  with  the  spectator.  But  the 
trouble  is  not  that  things  are  too  large  or  the 
mind  too  small ;  it  is  that  the  mind  is  not  suited 
to  the  work  of  knowing.  There  is  a  grand  misfit. 
If  knowing  is  our  aim,  then  the  world  and  our 
minds  are  so  ill-suited  to  each  other  that,  hard  as 
we  may  try,  it   is   utterly  impossible  that  there 


MAN  AS  SPECTATOR  OF  THE  COSMOS     199 

would  be  any  really  intelligible  commerce  between 
them. 

It  is  the  everlasting  advantage  of  the  agnostic 
that  we  cannot  prove  to  him  that  we  know,  be- 
cause some  things  must  be  assumed  as  known  in 
constructing  our  proof;  but  it  is  also  his  ever- 
lasting disadvantage  that  if  we  challenge  him  to 
prove  that  we  do  not  know,  he  has  handicapped 
himself  against  assuming  anything  as  known  in 
constructing  his  proof.  Accordingly,  if  it  be  de- 
clared a  draw,  we  claim  the  immeasurable  advan- 
tage of  having  the  naive  testimony  of  consciousness 
and  experience  on  our  side. 

And  this  prima  facie  evidence  we  would  greatly 
emphasize.  We  are  always  presuming  upon  the 
trustworthiness  of  our  perceptions  and  our  reason. 
We  cannot  do  otherwise.  We  must  stop  and  be- 
think ourselves  if  we  would  invalidate  our  cog- 
nitive faculties.  We  base  their  accepted  validity 
upon  their  assumed  veracity.  Men  may  be  ag- 
nostic in  their  academic  caps  and  gowns,  but  they 
fall  from  grace  as  soon  as  they  go  about  their 
common  daily  work. 

It  is  of  a  piece  with  this  abomination  of  desola- 
tion in  philosophy,  that  men  have  trained  them- 
selves to  believe  that  things  are  not  what  they 
seem.     No,  I  am  not  to  argue  for  the  infallibility 


2oo  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

of  the  human  faculties,  and  yet,  even  if  they  are 
not  infallible,  they  are  ours,  and  they  are  all  we 
have,  and  we  must  either  use  them  or  we  are  no 
better  off  than  the  poor  agnostic. 

Every  man  assumes  that  his  own  perceptions 
are  normal  and  true  until  the  personal  equation  is 
corrected  for  him.  A  man  who  is  color-blind 
assumes  that  the  red  flag  is  blue  until  he  has  what 
is  to  him  convincing  evidence  that  his  own  senses 
mislead  him.  He  finds  that  he  is  an  exception, 
that  his  eyesight  is  abnormal.  If  the  great  ma- 
jority of  men  had  eyes  just  like  his,  then  his  eyes 
would  be  normal,  the  flag  would  be  voted  blue, 
and  they  who  call  it  red  would  be  voted  the  ab- 
normal. Coleridge  has  given  us  one  of  his 
finest  little  essays  upon  the  reflections  of  the  only 
remaining  sane  man  in  a  race  of  mad  men ;  and 
elsewhere  he  sums  up  the  conclusions  of  the 
reluctantly  yielding  exception  in  these  words  :  "  I 
call  all  men  mad  and  all  men  call  me  mad,  and 
confound  it  they  outvote  me."  It  is  not  that  our 
cognitions  are  arbitrary  conventions ;  it  is  that  we 
assume  that  the  consensus  of  judgment  is  correct, 
and  the  exception  defers  to  the  consensus.  Kant's 
conceit  is  correct,  that  if  all  men  had  always  seen 
the  world  through  green  goggles,  the  world  would 
have   always   been    called  green;    and    no    man 


MAN  AS  SPECTATOR  OF  THE  COSMOS     201 

would  have  arisen  wise  enough  to  tell  the  deluded 
race  that  the  greenness  was  not  in  the  world  but 
in  the  goggles.  We  must  trust  the  eyes  we  have 
unless  we  have  evidence  which  leads  us  to  trust 
other  eyes  as  against  ours.  A  nearsighted  man 
would  never  know  that  the  world  is  not  as  he  sees 
it,  if  left  absolutely  to  himself.  The  testimony  of 
his  oculist  is  accepted  because  he  is  persuaded 
that,  his  own  vision  to  the  contrary  notwithstand- 
ing, his  oculist  knozvs  best ;  he  trusts  one  whom 
he  has  reason  to  accept  as  an  "  authority." 

But  as  to  the  being  versus  the  seeming;  we 
submit  that  the  greatest  bogy  ever  foisted  upon 
human  thought  is  Kant's  Tking-in-itself ;  as  if  the 
thing-in-itself  were  different  from  the  thing. 
Seeming  should  never  be  regarded  as  a  noun  ;  it  is 
always  only  a  participial  adjective.  It  is  all  wrong 
to  imagine  that  the  thing-in-itsclf  is  one  thing  and 
that  the  thing,  stripped  of  the  hyphenated  quali- 
fying clause,  is  something  else.  The  thing  is  the 
thing,  and  anything  else  is  a  misapprehension  of  it. 

I  see  an  animal  coming  down  the  neighboring 
hillside  through  the  obscuring  medium  of  a  fog. 
I  dimly  perceive  the  outline,  and  take  it  to  be  a 
calf.  At  that  point,  I  take — or  rather  mistake — it 
to  be  something  which  it  is  not.  The  animal 
approaches    me  as  the  fog  rises,  and  I  presently 


202  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

see  that  it  is  not  a  calf,  as  I  had  supposed,  but  a 
dog.  In  a  few  moments,  however,  I  find  a  second 
time  that  I  was  mistaken ;  it  was  really  a  goat. 
"  Things  are  not  what  they  seem."  Yes  ;  but  the 
difficulty  •  is  not  with  the  thing,  but  with  us.  It 
was  the  goat  all  the  way  down  the  hill,  only  I 
misapprehended  it.  At  each  point  in  my  obser- 
vation I  was  bound  to  form  a  judgment  based 
upon  what  at  that  moment  appeared  to  me  to  be 
the  truth.  When  I  dismissed  the  calf  judgment 
and  pronounced  it  a  dog,  it  was  simply  because 
just  then  it  appeared  to  me  as  a  dog.  If  you  had 
been  there  and  had  assured  me  that  it  was  a  goat, 
against  my  judgment  based  upon  my  own  percep- 
tion, then  I  would  have  called  what  to  me  seemed 
sensibly  to  be  a  calf,  a  goat.  But  I  should  have 
changed  my  judgment  because,  all  things  consid- 
ered, I  had  evidence,  on  a  higher  level  than  that 
of  mere  sense-perception,  that  it  was  a  goat ;  that 
is  to  say,  all  in  all,  it  then  seemed  to  me  that  it 
was  a  goat,  and  not  a  calf,  as  it  looked  to  me  to 
be.  We  can  correct  the  judgment  based  upon 
our  own  seeing  by  the  testimony  of  those  who  we 
have  reason  to  believe  can  see  better  than  we  can. 
We  are  doing  just  this  thing  every  day.  Our 
sense-perceptions  are  but  the  hewers  of  wood  and 
drawers  of  water.     We  have   reason  and  under- 


MAN  AS  SPECTATOR  OF  THE  COSMOS     203 

standing,  also.  It  seems  to  me,  that  is  to  my 
senses,  that  the  sun  goes  round  the  earth  every 
twenty-four  hours ;  but,  on  wider  views  and  higher 
grounds,  it  seems  to  me  that  it  does  no  such  thing. 
The  science  of  astronomy  is  a  contradiction  of 
mere  sense-perception.  It  seems  to  me,  that  is  to 
my  senses,  that  matter  is  all  there  is  of  man  ;  but 
I  have  other  powers  than  those  of  sense,  and 
taking  these  into  account,  it  seems  to  me  that 
man  is  vastly  more  than  matter.  Every  new  bit 
of  evidence  changes  the  seeming.  Our  judgment 
of  the  cosmos  to-day  is  based  upon  what,  in  the 
light  of  all  kinds  of  evidence  within  our  reach, 
the  cosmos  seems  to  us  to  be.  If  we  get  new 
light  to-morrow,  the  cosmos  will  seem  to  us 
changed  from  our  present  conception  of  it  by  just 
so  much. 

Our  conception  of  God  is  based  upon  what 
God  seems  to  us  to  be.  It  cannot  be  otherwise, 
and  there  can  be  no  quarrel  in  our  minds  between 
what  God  is  and  what  He  seems  to  be.  What 
He  seems  to  be,  that,  and  only  that,  we  must 
believe  Him  to  be. 

We  are  urging  this  now  as  a  necessary  psycho- 
logical law  of  thought.  It  is  absurd  that  there 
should  be  any  difference  in  our  minds  between 
what  a  thing  is   and  what,  up  to  date,  that  thing 


204  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

seems  to  us  to  be.  For  how  can  we  know  that  it 
really  is  something  else  than  it  seems  to  us  to 
be?  If  it  seems  to  us  to  be  that  something  else, 
then  it  has,  ipso  facto,  ceased  to  seem  to  be  what 
we  were  supposed  to  be  contrasting  with  that 
something  else.  There  may  be  a  discrepancy 
between  what  a  thing  really  is  and  what  it  seems 
to  us  to  be,  but  we  are  necessarily  ignorant  of  that 
discrepancy.  There  may  be  a  discrepancy  be- 
tween what  a  thing  seems  to  my  senses  only  to 
be,  and  what,  on  the  whole  and  all  in  all,  it  seems 
to  me  to  be.  There  may  be  a  discrepancy  be- 
tween what  a  thing  seemed  to  me  yesterday  to  be 
and  what  it  seems  to  me  to-day  to  be ;  but  the 
change  is  in  the  line  of  what  I  must  regard  as  the 
correction  of  a  former  misapprehension.  It  was 
the  goat,  really,  all  the  way  down  the  hill ;  the 
goat  was  the  ding-an-sich ;  but  at  the  first  point 
of  observation,  to  me  that  goat  seemed  to  be  a 
calf,  and  to  me  a  calf  it  was,  and  would  have  been 
to  the  foot  of  the  hill  if  other  testimony,  from  my 
eyes  or  my  ears,  or  from  your  words,  or  from  some 
other  of  the  ten  thousand  sources  of  modifica- 
tion in  the  sphere  of  my  cognition  and  judgment, 
had  not  come  in — if  the  goat-an-stc/i  had  not 
changed  its  appearance  from  the  calf  and  from 
the   dog  to   what   I   now   believe  it  really  was. 


MAN  AS  SPECTATOR  OF  THE  COSMOS     205 

Indeed,  it  is  only  because  it  seemed  to  me  to  be 
a  goat  at  the  last,  and  because  it  never  afterwards 
seemed  to  me  to  be  anything  else,  that  I  am  now 
warranted  in  believing  and  declaring  that  it  really 
was  a  goat. 

We  can  never  get  nearer  to  the  thing  in  itself 
than  we  can  get  to  the  thing  as  it  seems  to  us  at 
a  given  moment  to  be.  What  it  seems,  it  only 
seems  to  be.  There  can  be  absolutely  no  quarrel 
between  Appearance  and  Reality.  We  know 
reality  as  appearance  and,  as  it  appears  to  us,  that 
to  us  it  is. 

There  is  always  at  the  last  a  chasm  between  the 
ego  and  its  extra-mental  object,  absolutely  un- 
bridgeable except  by  faith.  If  you  insist  that  I 
demonstrate  to  you  the  existence  of  the  object, 
then  you  will  follow  that  with  a  demand  that  I 
demonstrate  the  validity  of  my  demonstration, 
and  so  on  in  a  regressus  ad  infinitum.  Here  we 
are  again  searching  for  the  foothold  of  Atlas. 
Remember  that  we  are  not  saying  that  this 
weakens  the  quality  of  the  knowledge  of  the 
object.  Here  is  the  truth  in  the  perverted  doc- 
trine of  "judgments  of  value."  Here,  too,  is  the 
truth  in  the  Conception  of  Being  which  Professor 
Royce  does  not  like,  and  which  he  calls  the  Va- 
lidity of  Ideas.      It  is  capable  of  abuse,  as  if  all 


206  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

knowledge  were  supposititious  and  untrustworthy ; 
but  it  is  true  in  the  sense  that  the  search  for  an 
apodictally  demonstrated  basis  of  our  cognition  is 
a  fool's  errand  and  must  forever  fail.  All  our 
knowledge  is  analogical.  President  Patton  is 
quoted  as  saying  that  "  the  world  is  full  of  as  ifsT  l 
Professor  Royce  exaggerates  this  when  he  says : 
"  This  as  if,  or  as  it  were,  becomes  to  some  think- 
ers a  sort  of  ultimate  category.  One  ...  no 
longer  proves  that  God  exists,  but  only  that,  //  is 
as  if  lie  were."2 

A  man  may  as  well  try  to  jump  out  of  his  skin 
as  to  try  to  divest  himself  of  his  own  sense-per- 
ceptions and  rational  conclusions.  Men  some- 
times slander  human  logic,  but  it  does  little  credit 
to  the  slanderer.  We  may  go  wrong  following 
logic,  but  if  it  is  the  best  we  can  do,  then  we  are 
bound  to  do  that  best.  Because  I  am  near- 
sighted I  must  not  discredit  all  eyes.  I  must  not 
refuse  to  see  as  best  I  can ;  my  poor  eyes  are 
infinitely  better  than  none.  If  we  are  not  to  use 
our  logic,  what  are  we  to  use  ?  Are  we  more 
likely  to  reach  sound  conclusions  by  ignoring  our 
logic?  Every  proposition  is  either  logical  or 
illogical ;    the   terms    unlogical  and   super-logical 

1  Quoted  by  Dr.  A.  H.  Strong,  in  his  Christian  Monism. 

2  The  World  and  the  Individual,  p.  206.     Italics  his. 


MAN  AS  SPECTATOR  OF  THE  COSMOS     207 

mean  simply  nothing.  Logic  is  purely  formal ;  a 
fictitious  proposition,  that  is,  a  proposition  having 
no  correspondence  in  the  world  of  actuality  is 
subject  to  the  same  logical  tests  as  the  most 
matter-of-fact  statement  of  the  actual.  There  may 
be  a  logical  lie  ;  the  lady  was  not  so  absurd  as  she 
was  thought  to  be  when  she  said  her  minister  was 
very  logical,  but  his  preaching  was  not  true.  But 
the  truth,  in  its  entirety,  is  logical.  It  may  be  too 
large  for  our  comprehension  ;  but  if  we  can  grasp 
or  catch  it  at  all,  then  it  will  or  will  not  seem  to  us 
to  conform  to  the  innate  God-authenticated  laws 
of  human  thought.  Because  we  say  of  God  that 
He  is  infinite,  we  cannot  therefore  predicate  con- 
tradictory attributes  of  Him.  God  is  infinite,  but 
our  idea  of  God  is  not  infinite.  The  thought- 
objects  in  our  minds  may  be  purely  ideal,  as  in 
pure  mathematics ;  they  may  be  of  the  non-exist- 
ent, as  in  a  poet's  Utopia;  they  may  be  of  the 
absolute  and  infinite,  as  in  the  conception  of  the 
ever-living  God;  but  when  we  form  our  judg- 
ments concerning  them  we  must  needs  do  so  in 
a  way  that  seems  to  us  either  logical  or  illogical ; 
in  the  former  case  they  will  be  acceptable,  and 
in  the  latter  they  will  be  abhorrent.  Any  pres- 
entation of  the  Christian  religion  which  makes 
it  appear   either   irrational    in    itself  or  logically 


208  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

pppugnant  to  assuredly  ascertained  truth  from 
any  source  whatever  will  surely  bring  its  entail 
of  disaster  in  the  end. 

All  this  is  not  the  Jiantciw  of  rationalism ;  it  is 
not  the  papacy  of  human  logic  ;  it  is  not  a  repudi- 
ation of  the  Testimonium  Spiritus  Sancti.  It  is 
simply  a  plea  for  the  essential  reasonableness  of 
the  Christian  faith  and  the  logicalness,  as  against 
the  illogicalness,  of  the  Christian  religion.  We 
do  not  argue  that  human  logic  is  infallible ;  but 
its  fallibility  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  adjective  and 
not  to  the  logic.  The  infinities  of  our  faith  give 
no  franchise  for  a  violation  of  any  law  of  thought 
and  test  of  truth.  Mr.  John  Burroughs  is  giving 
us  nonsensical  twaddle  when  he  says,  "  There 
may  be  any  number  of  true  though  opposing  and 
contradictory  religions." 1  The  late  Professor 
Romanes  for  a  time  held  to  some  such  notion 
when  he  wrote  these  words,  "  The  probability, 
therefore,  that  nature  is  devoid  of  Deity  while  it  is 
of  the  strongest  kind  if  regarded  scientifically — 
amounting,  in  fact,  to  a  scientific  demonstration — 
is  nevertheless  wholly  worthless  if  regarded  logic- 
ally " ; 2  but  he  saw  his  fundamental  error  after- 
wards.    Such  a  view  of  religion  does  not  lead  to 

1  See  his  The  Light  of  Common  Day. 

2  Quoted  from  Pliysicus  in  Thoughts  on  Religion,  p.  19. 


MAN  AS  SPECTATOR  OF  THE  COSMOS     209 

atheism ;  it  is  atheism  to  a  thoughtful  mind,  and 
Professor  Romanes,  in  the  reasoned  skepticism  of 
PJiysicus,  argued  as  much.  No  sane  man  can  ac- 
cept by  his  faith  what  he  rejects  by  his  reason. 
Dr.  Charles  Hodge  speaks  clearly  and  strongly 
in  these  words  :  "  The  assumption  that  reason  and 
faith  are  incompatibles,  that  we  must  become  irra- 
tional in  order  to  become  believers,  is,  however  it 
may  be  intended,  the  language  of  infidelity ;  for 
faith  in  the  irrational  is  of  necessity  itself  irra- 
tional. .  .  This  would  be  to  believe  and  to  dis- 
believe the  same  thing  at  the  same  time.  .  . 
And,  therefore,  the  refuge  which  some  would  take 
in  faith,  from  the  universal  skepticism  to  which 
they  say  reason  necessarily  leads,  is  insecure  and 
worthless."  l 

One  more  question  remains  to  be  considered, 
and  it  is  of  the  greatest  importance.  What  con- 
ception of  God  shall  we  form  or  can  we  form  ? 
The  view  of  cosmical  knowledge  which  we  have 
been  arguing  for  implies  intercourse  between 
persons.  The  cosmos  is  not  pantheistic,  but,  to 
borrow  Henri-Frederic  Amiel's  word,  pancnthe- 
istic?  Man,  the  super-cosmical  spectator,  is  one 
of  the  persons,  and  God,  who  is  both  within  and 

1  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  iii.,  p.  83. 

2  Journal,  June  19,  1872. 
14 


210  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

above  the  cosmos,  is  the  other.  But  shall  we  con- 
ceive of  God  as  a  person  ?  Do  we  not  dishonor 
Him  by  thus  limiting  Him?  Are  we  not  making 
Him  such  an  one  as  ourselves?  Is  it  true,  after 
all,  that  we  are  guilty  of  the  crime  charged  by 
Matthew  Arnold  in  regarding  God  only  as  a 
"  magnified  man  "  ? 

Philosophy  does  not  now  seem  to  be  troubled 
with  Spinoza's  old  objection  that,  if  God  is  infinite, 
He  cannot  also  be  a  person.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  tendency  of  recent  thought  seems  to  be  with 
Lotze  in  regarding  not  infinity  but  finity  as  the 
negation  of  personality.  Spinoza  said  that  the 
infinite  cannot  be  personal ;  Lotze  questions 
whether  the  finite  can.  He  says  :  "  Perfect  Per- 
sonality is  in  God  only,  to  all  finite  minds  there 
is  allotted  but  a  pale  copy  thereof;  the  finiteness 
of  the  finite  is  not  a  producing  condition  of  this 
personality,  but  a  limit  and  a  hindrance  of  its  de- 
velopment " l  It  would  be  easy  to  name  recent 
philosophers  and  theologians  by  the  dozen  who 
have  heartily  accepted  this  view.  And  yet,  we 
have  always  felt  disposed  to  inquire  about  that 
ambiguous  word  "  copy,"  before  subscribing  to 
this  tenet.  A  photograph  is  the  copy  of  the  king ; 
so  also  is  the  prince.  But  they  are  altogether  dif- 
1  Microcosmus,  vol.  ii.,  p.  688.     Scribners. 


MAN  AS  SPECTATOR  OF  THE  COSMOS     211 

ferent  kinds  of  copies.  The  king  and  the  prince 
are  generically  identical ;  the  king  and  the  photo- 
graph are  not.  We  believe  that  human  personal- 
ity is  a  copy  of  the  divine  as  the  prince,  and  not 
as  the  photograph  is  a  copy  of  the  king.  If  Lotze 
means  by  "  a  pale  copy "  that  man  is  less  than 
really  personal,  that  is  to  say,  other  than  personal, 
and  that  God  alone  is  personal,  then  we  should 
be  inclined  to  stand  against  Lotze  and  contra  mun- 
dum.  If  the  personality  of  God  is  to  be  held  on 
condition  of  the  infra-personality  of  man,  then  it 
is  held  at  too  great  a  cost.  We  are  compelled, 
willingly  or  unwillingly,  to  take  the  human  as  the 
base-line  of  our  conception  of  the  divine;  we  are 
made  in  the  divine  image.  God  is  a  Spirit,  and  we 
are  spirits,  and  we  come  back  to  that  fundamental 
principle  which  we  have  so  often  encountered, 
namely,  that  it  is  because  there  is  generic  affinity 
between  God  and  us  that  we  can  have  any  inter- 
course whatever  with  Him. 

It  is  for  this  reason  that  we  are  very  chary  of 
any  terminology  that  has  the  appearance  of  put- 
ting either  God  or  man  outside  of  the  single  cate- 
gory, the  personal.  In  this  we  believe  that  we 
have  abundant  scriptural  warrant  and  the  impera- 
tive exigencies  of  a  sound  philosophy.  Either  to 
call  God  supra-personal  and  man  personal,  or  to 


212  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

call  God  personal  and  man  infra-personal,  is  con- 
fusing and,  we  believe,  wholly  unnecessary  and 
unwarranted.  If  God  and  man  are  essentially 
heterogeneous,  then  we  are  back  again  in  the  bog 
of  agnosticism. 

Aside  from  Spinoza's  exploded  objection,  Deter- 
minatio  negatio  est,  we  may  still  inquire  whether 
we  honor  or  dishonor  God  by  thinking  of  Him  as 
a  person.  A  very  bright  post-graduate  student 
of  philosophy  once  proposed  this  question  to  me 
in  the  best  of  faith,  and  it  is  fair  to  assume  that  it 
often  asks  itself  in  thoughtful  and  reverent  minds. 
Certainly  it  is  in  the  direction  of  light  to  remind 
ourselves  that  to  all  sound  philosophical  minds, 
to-day,  personality  is  the  highest  category  of 
human  thinking.  We  pay  our  highest  possible 
tribute  to  God,  then,  when  we  conceive  of  Him 
as  a  person.  If  we  fain  would  honor  Him  more 
highly  than  that,  we  may  speak  the  word  "  supra- 
personal,"  but  to  us  men  the  word  is  absolutely 
without  meaning.  If  a  word  is  the  sign  of  an 
idea,  then,  inasmuch  as  no  idea  is  signified  by 
"  supra-personal,"  it  is  no  word.  It  is  only  an 
abracadabra  in  the  high-sounding  jargon  of  ag- 
nostic pedantry.  We  can  form  no  conception  of 
the  supra-personal.  The  personal  is  self-conscious. 
We  can  conceive  of  nothing  which  is  not  either 


MAN  AS  SPECTATOR  OF  THE  COSMOS"   213 

self-conscious  or  non-self-conscious ;  if  it  is  the 
former,  it  is  personal ;  if  it  is  the  latter,  it  is  less 
than  personal — not  more.  The  personal  is  rational. 
Everything  we  can  conceive  is  either  rational  or  it 
is  not.  If  it  is  rational,  then  it  is  personal  ;  if  it  is 
not,  then  it  is  less  than  personal,  not  more.  The 
personal  is  free.  Everything  we  conceive  is  either 
free  or  it  is  not.  If  it  is  free,  then  it  is  personal ; 
if  it  is  not,  then  it  is  less  than  personal,  not  more. 
It  is  not  the  question  now  whether  human  con- 
ceivability  is  the  test  of  truth,  whether  homo  men- 
sura  rerum  ;  the  question  is  whether  we  honor 
God  by  refusing  to  think  of  Him  in  the  very 
highest  terms  of  thinking  which  we  can  com- 
mand. To  deny  that  God  is  personal  in  order  to 
affirm  of  Him  something  which  means  to  us 
absolutely  nothing  is  not  to  honor  God  at  all,  but 
only  to  dismiss  the  thought  of  Him  entirely  from 
our  minds. 

Here  we  are  again,  to  be  sure,  assuming  the 
trustworthiness  of  our  mental  processes.  We  are 
not  drawing  from  Scripture  now,  though  that 
would  settle  the  difficulty  in  a  moment ;  we  are 
dealing  with  the  inquiring  student  of  philosophy 
who  has  hardly  been  trained  by  his  academic 
master  to  regard  Scripture  sanction  as  final ;  and 
yet  we  venture  to  affirm  that  it  is  not  rationalism 


214  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

but  agnosticism  which,  out  of  a  mistaken  notion 
of  reverence  for  the  divine,  withholds  the  predica- 
tion of  personality  from  God  with  the  purpose  of 
ascribing  some  higher  attribute  to  Him.  There 
are  not  three  categories,  the  personal,  the  supra- 
personal,  and  the  infra-personal.  There  are  but 
two,  and  these  are  exhaustive,  namely,  the  per- 
sonal and  the  impersonal.  To  call  God  more  than 
personal  is  to  make  Him  less.  Mr.  Spencer  calls 
the  ultimate  noumenon  Force,  but  as  we  know 
force  it  is,  per  se,  impersonal.  Von  Hartmann 
believed  in  the  Supra-conscious  Unconscious,  a 
sort  of  Emersonian  Oversoul,  which  settles  down 
into  pantheism ;  but  pantheism  is  ever  the  doc- 
trine of  the  ultimately  impersonal.  Either  God 
is  personal  or  He  is  impersonal  ;  or,  all  men  are 
agnostics.  What  we  believe  is  that  He  is  a  person 
and  we  are  persons ;  we  are  made  in  His  image, 
sin-tarnished  images  of  God,  "  pale  copies "  of 
Him,  and  we  do  well  to  conceive  of  Him  in  terms 
of  our  own  God-given,  Godlike  nature. 

The  suggestion  has  been  made  by  a  very  dis- 
criminating writer  that  God  may  be  both  personal 
and  super-personal.  "  As  person,  or  rational  intel- 
ligence, He  is  immanent  in  nature.  As  multi- 
personal,  He  transcends  nature,  and  interferes  in 
nature,  just   as   one  human  will  interferes  in  the 


MAN  AS  SPECTATOR  OF  THE  COSMOS     215 

experience  of  another.  As  super-personal,  He 
unites  all  in  one,  and  occupies  a  position  of  trans- 
cendency in  a  higher  sense." l  His  own  pages, 
however,  serve  to  show  the  weakness  of  his  posi- 
tion. He  admits  that  "  this  super-personal  unity  is 
above  thought "  ;  he  says  :  "  For  us,  personality 
is  the  ultimate  form  of  unity.  It  is  not  so  for 
Him.  For  in  Him  all  persons  live  and  move  and 
have  their  being  "  ; 2  concerning  this  unity,  he  says 
that  "  it  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  irrational,  it  is 
rather  super-rational,  which  means  that  it  is 
rational  and  also  more  than  rational."  3 

But  what  shall  we  say  of  that  solution  of  an 
"  antinomy  "  which  is  admittedly  "  above  thought," 
and  is  upon  a  "  principle  of  unification  higher 
than  any  known  to  human  reason  "  ?  \i  x  and  y 
both  represent  unknown  quantities,  where  is  the 
gain  in  reducing  x  to  terms  of  y  ?  Of  what  pos- 
sible value  is  a  solution  which  is  "  above 
thought " ? 

The  underlying  question  in  all  this  is  whether 
God  really  is  what  He  seems  to  us  to  be  ?  That 
is  to  say,  can  we  rely  upon  His  being  what  He 
seems  to  be,  what  we  believe  Him  to  be  ?     Mr. 

1  Idealism  and  Theology,  by  Charles  F.  d'Arcy,  B.  D.,  p.  153. 

2  D'Arcy' s  Idealism  and  Theology,  pp.  205,  93. 
sIbid.,  p.  185. 


216  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

d'Arcy  says  that  "  in  His  ultimate  nature  "  God 
is  super-personal ;  leaving  us,  of  course,  to  infer 
that,  without  this  qualifying  clause,  He  is  per- 
sonal. This  is  utterly  unsatisfactory ;  for  if  we 
would  think  of  Him  as  He  really  is  "  in  His  ulti- 
mate nature,"  then  (He  being  "  super-personal  ") 
we  cannot  think  of  Him  at  all ;  but  if  we  would 
think  of  Him  as  other  than  as  He  is  "  in  His 
ultimate  nature,"  we  are  deliberately  befooling 
ourselves,  and  are  not  thinking  of  Him  at  all  as 
He  is. 

Sir  William  Hamilton's  conception  of  regula- 
tive knowledge  of  God,  as  against  the  possibility 
of  a  real  knowledge  of  Him,  is  logically,  as  it  has 
been  historically,  the  philosophical  ancestor  of 
skepticism  and  not  of  Christian  faith.  Born 
of  Kant's  antinomies,  it  was  the  mother  of  Spen- 
cer's nineteenth-century  agnosticism.  If  we  can- 
not know  God  as  He  is,  then  we  cannot  know 
Him  at  all.  Any  lack  of  intellectual  candor  in 
our  conceptions  of  God  is  bound  to  breed  disas- 
trous spiritual  consequences.  We  cannot  draw  a 
line  between  the  mere  being  of  God  and  His 
attributes.  No  man  ever  knew  that  there  is  a  God 
without  knowing  something  of  what  that  God  is; 
otherwise,  how  could  he  know  that  it  was  a  God 
he  knew  the  being  of?     An  attributeless  thing  is 


MAN  AS  SPECTATOR  OF  THE  COSMOS     217 

no  thing;  an  attributeless  God  is  no  God.  It  is 
not  that  our  knowledge  of  God  is  exhaustive  or 
accurate,  but  that,  in  so  far  as  it  goes,  it  is  genuine 
and  true.  Calvin  says,  "  It  is  not  of  so  much  im- 
portance to  us  to  know  what  He  is  in  Himself  as 
what  He  is  willing  to  be  to  us."  This  is  true  if  it 
is  meant  that,  as  our  gracious  Redeemer,  it  is  of 
the  greatest  importance  that  we  should  know 
what  He  is  willing  to  do  for  us  ;  otherwise,  we 
should  demur  to  the  remark.  That  this  is  Cal- 
vin's meaning,  however,  is  shown  from  the  words 
which  follow :  "  The  foundation  of  this  is  a  pre- 
vious persuasion  of  the  divine  veracity ;  any 
doubt  of  which  being  entertained  in  the  mind,  the 
authority  of  the  word  will  be  dubious  and  weak, 
or,  rather,  it  will  be  of  no  authority  at  all."  l 

Little  time  remains  to  speak  of  anthropomor- 
phic  theism,  that   horrible   bete  noir  of  modern 

1  Institutes,  Book  III.,  chap,  ii.,  sec.  6.  Neque  enim  scire 
quis  in  se  sit,  tantum  nostra  refert,  sed  qualis  esse  nobis  velit. 
Jam  ergo  habemus  fidem  esse  divinae  erga  nos  voluntati  noti- 
tiam  ex  ejus  verbo  perceptam.  Hujus  autem  fundamentum  est, 
praesumpta  de  veritate  Dei  persuasio.  De  cujus  certitudine, 
quamdiu  fecum  animus  tuus  disceptabit,  dubiae  et  infirmae,  vel 
potius  nullius  auctoritatis  erit  verburn.  Neque  etiam  sufficit 
Deum  credere  veracem,  qui  nee  fallere  nee  mentiri  possit,  nisi 
constituas  proculdubis,  quicquid  ab  ipso  prodit,  sacrosanctam  esse 
et  inviolabilem  veritatem. 


218  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

scientific  thought.  Mr.  Spencer  is  thrown  into 
such  a  hysterical  state  of  mind  that  he  is  bereft 
of  every  element  of  a  personal  or  even  of  a  know- 
able  God  ;  and  Mr.  Fiske  would  construct  a  cosmic 
conception  of  Him  which  is  eviscerated  of  all  that 
makes  God  God  to  us.1  All  this  is  a  gratuitous 
straining  after  the  impossible.  It  is  of  no  avail 
to  repudiate  ourselves  because  we  are  human. 
Goethe  says  truly  that  man  can  never  know  how 
anthropomorphic  he  is.  Being  himself  an  antliro- 
pos,  he  must  anthropomorphize  every  conception 
he  forms,  eveiy  object  he  touches.  If  our  holiest 
devotions  are  to  be  paid  at  the  shrine  of  a  mys- 
terious, fugitive  Ding-an-sich,  which  is  the  eter- 
nally irreducible  x  of  human  thought,  then  our 
life  is  to  be  a  dreary  and  aimless  wandering  and 
our  religion  must  be  an  empty  and  unsatisfying 
mockery  of  the  soul.  If,  as  Sir  William  Hamilton 
has  said,  "  The  last  and  highest  consecration  of 
all  true  religion  must  be  an  altar,  ^Ajvojazcp  6s<p, 
to  the  unknown  and  unknowable  God,"2  then 
reason  is  dumb,  the  heart  is  frozen,  and  faith  in 
God  is  the  last  dice-throw  in  the  hopeless  per- 
plexity of  the  soul's  doubt. 

1  We  here  speak  of  the  Fiske  of  the  Cosmic  Philosophy,  not 
of  the  Fiske  of  the  later  writings. 
2  Discussions,  p.  22. 


MAN  AS  SPECTATOR  OF  THE  COSMOS     219 

We  do  not  know  God  exhaustively,  but  we 
know  Him  truly.  The  little  child,  playing  upon 
the  beach  of  the  great  Pacific  Ocean,  cognizes 
that  vast  sea  correctly  but  not  comprehensively. 
Whatever  strange  conditions  on  Asiatic  headlands 
may  bound  its  wide  domain,  whatever  shores 
under  the  equator  or  beneath  either  pole  may 
challenge  the  progress  of  its  waves,  the  child  sees 
and  knows  the  Pacific  Ocean,  stretching  out  before 
him,  partly  but  truly  as  it  is.  If  he  sail  out  at 
the  Golden  Gate  and  float  westward,  past  fabled 
tropical  islands,  on  and  on  till  he  come  at  last  to 
strange  races  and  unheard-of  continents,  it  will 
still  be  the  same  Pacific  Ocean  he  will  know.  Let 
him  give  his  whole  life  to  sailing  on  its  broad 
expanses,  cruising  among  its  innumerable  indenta- 
tions, and  tracing  out  the  countless  forms  of  living 
things,  from  tiny  coral  to  huge  leviathan,  that 
dwell  within  its  depths,  and  from  microscopic 
insect  to  some  undiscovered  modern  mastodon 
that  make  their  homes  upon  its  shores,  it  is  the 
same  Pacific  Ocean,  still.  He  knows  it  more  thor- 
oughly, but  not  more  really  nor,  within  its  limits, 
more  truthfully,  than  when  he  first  shoveled  the 
sand  by  my  side  on  its  beach.  There  is  only  one 
condition  needed  in  order  that  we  may  be  sure 
that  none  of  his  later  knowledge  will  contradict 


220  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

what  as  a  child  he  knew,  and  that  condition  is 
that  it  was  certainly  the  Pacific  Ocean  he  then 
knew. 

"  We  know  in  part ;"  but  it  is  knowing.  We 
know  God  as  like  ourselves ;  or,  rather,  we  know 
ourselves  to  be  like  Him.  Qualis  liomo,  talis 
Dens.  Augustine  says,  "We  see  the  depths,  but 
we  reach  not  the  bottom " ;  we  know  God,  but 
eternity  will  be  too  brief  to  make  that  knowledge 
exhaustive,  comprehensive,  and  complete. 


LECTURE  VII 

THE   COSMOS  AND   SPECIAL 
REVELATION 


LECTURE  VII 

THE  COSMOS  AND  SPECIAL  REVELATION 

We  have  now  seen  that  the  cosmos  is  of  the 
nature  of  a  revelation,  a  self-revelation  of  its 
Author.  It  is  essentially  the  organized  transcript 
of  an  organizing  consciousness,  which  at  once  per- 
vades and  transcends  it.  Otherwise  it  is  neither 
legible  nor  intelligible ;  otherwise,  it  is  not  a 
cosmos. 

This  revelation,  like  every  revelation,  involves 
three  elements,  namely :  the  ego  revealing,  the 
alter  ego  addressed,  and  a  certain  relation  between 
the  two.  This  certain  relation  conditions  any 
revelation  whatever,  for  if  the  two  persons  are 
absolutely  insulated  from  each  other,  then  the 
outward  revelation  of  the  one  cannot  be  taken  up 
into  the  consciousness  of  the  other,  but  must  fall 
dead,  aside  from  its  purpose.  If  you  write  me  a 
letter  containing  a  secret,  your  letter  may  be  said 
to  be  a  revelation  at  the  moment  that  it  comes 
from  your  hand  ;  but  if  I  never  receive  it  or  if, 
when  I  do  receive  it,  I  find  that  it  is  written  in  a 
language  which  I  cannot  read,  then,  after  all,  in- 

223 


224  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

asmuch  as  it  has  actually  revealed  nothing  to  me, 
it  cannot  be  called  a  revelation  in  the  fullest  sense, 
at  all.  The  Bible  is  a  revelation  in  itself,  but  it 
reveals  nothing  to  the  man  to  whom  it  never 
comes  or  to  whom,  for  any  reason,  it  is  a  sealed 
book.  The  cosmos  is  an  objective  revelation,  but 
certain  conditions  must  exist  in  men  if  its  revela- 
tion-content is  to  be  apprehended  by  them.  And 
this  apprehending  capacity  is  a  thing  of  degree. 
To  almost  no  man  is  it  wholly  wanting,  while  in 
some  it  is  quick  and  large.  One  man  sees  the 
hand  of  God  in  history,  while  to  another  the  past 
is  a  dreary  tract  of  arid  facts. 

"To  him  who  in  the  love  of  Nature  holds 
Communion  with  her  visible  forms,  she  speaks 
A  various  language." 

Nature's  teachings,  like  all  others,  wait  upon 
the  capacities  of  the  taught.  It  is  a  truism  in 
pedagogy  that  certain  moral  elements  enter  into 
the  qualification  of  the  ready  learner,  as  well  as 
of  the  skillful  teacher.  There  must  be  teachable- 
ness, confidence,  sympathy,  surrender.  No  in- 
tellectual act  is  exclusively  intellectual.  The  in- 
clinations and  disinclinations,  the  likes  and  dis- 
likes, are  enlisted  in  the  maintenance  of  the  cer- 
tian  nice  relations  between  the  cosmos,  as  God's 
revealing,  and  the  human  spectator,  who  is  the 


THE  COSMOS  AND  SPECIAL  REVELATION   225 

idealizing  re-creator  of  that  cosmos.  The  re- 
cipient must  be  measurably  in  harmony  with  the 
divine  revealer,  if  he  is  to  perceive  and  assimilate 
the  thought  and  purpose  set  forth  in  the  vast  cos- 
mical  symbol  about  him. 

But  this  relation  is  precisely  that  which,  as  we 
have  seen,  has  been  disturbed.  And  this  dis- 
turbance has  come  in  two  ways : — 

First,  sin  has  vitiated  man's  capacity  to  respond 
to  God's  voice  in  nature.  It  has  robbed  him  of 
no  essential,  natural  faculty.  A  man  is  a  man, 
genus  homo,  in  Eden,  in  Sodom,  in  heaven  or  in 
hell.  President  Edwards  has  said,  "  Sin  destroys 
spiritual  principles,  but  not  natural  faculties."1 
However,  we  believe  that  the  normal  exercise  of 
these  natural  faculties  is  greatly  impaired  and  im- 
peded. Edwards  goes  so  far  as  to  say,  "  There 
seems  to  be  nothing  in  the  nature  of  sin  or  moral 
corruption  that  has  any  tendency  to  destroy  the 
natural  capacity,  or  even  to  diminish  it,  properly 
speaking."2  Metaphysically  regarded,  this  may 
possibly  be  so,  but  in  men,  as  we  see  them,  though 
the  spiritual  principle  is  the  seat  of  his  ruin  prima- 
rily, yet  every  faculty  of  his  being  seems  measur- 
ably benumbed  and  sluggish.     The  spiritual  death 

1  Sermon  on  True  Grace  Distinguished  from  the  Experience 
of  Devils.  *  Ibid. 

15 


226  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

which  sin  has  wrought  has,  by  a  sort  of  capillary- 
attraction,  spread  its  deadening  influence  upon 
his  whole  being,  body,  soul,  and  spirit, — intellect, 
sensibility,  and  will. 

In  the  second  place,  moreover,  the  cosmos  has 
been  itself  thrown  out  of  poise.  This  follows 
from  man's  fall.  The  world  we  see  is  not  as  God 
made  it.  Nature  is  now  ///mature,  to  use  Dr. 
Bushnell's  expressive  phrase,  and  so  the  natural 
is  now  unnatural.  The  text  of  the  cosmical  pro- 
tevangelium  has  been  corrupted  and  its  meaning 
obscured. 

The  use  which  man  makes  of  the  God-revealing 
cosmos  is  too  often  an  abuse,  a  misuse.  The  pure 
fountain  has  become  a  stagnant  pool.  By  a  false 
development  of  its  teachings  the  noblest  powers 
in  man  have  often  been  prostituted  to  basest  ends, 
and  the  very  truth  of  God  has  been  turned  into  a 
lie.  Corruptio  optimorum  pessima.  Paganism, 
with  all  its  distortions  of  the  good  and  its  perver- 
sions of  the  true,  is  the  historical  child  of  a  false 
reading  of  the  cosmical  message.  The  subjective 
capacity  for  religion  in  the  natural  man — what 
Calvin  calls  the  semen  religionis — and  the  ob- 
jective element — what  Turretin  calls  the  rcvclatio 
naturalis — have  both  been  put  in  bondage  to  the 
vilest  propensities  in  human  nature  and  to  the 


THE  COSMOS  AND  SPECIAL  REVELATION    227 

grossest  falsifications  of  the  truth  of  God.  The 
horrors  of  heathenism,  the  frivolities  of  the  Gre- 
cian mythology,  and  the  Phallic  shrines  of  sordid 
Hindustan,  are  the  actual  capitalizations  of  man's 
use  of  the  religion  of  the  cosmos.  Dr.  Kuyper 
says,  "  There  is  no  single  datum  in  idolatry  which 
is  inherent  in  it  but  has  sprung  from  natural  the- 
ology."1 Natural  theology  is  become  unnatural 
theology.  Paganism  is  the  deteriorated  apprecia- 
tion of  the  divine  in  nature.  The  apostle's  lurid 
description  in  the  first  chapter  of  his  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  locates  the  point  of  departure  in  the  false 
use  which  men  make  of  the  truth  which  the 
cosmos  contains  and  inculcates.  Men  knew  God, 
but  "  they  glorified  Him  not  as  God."  Their 
imaginations  were  vain  and  their  foolish  hearts 
were  darkened ;  they  changed  the  truth  of  God 
into  a  lie  and  worshiped  the  creature  rather  than 
the  Creator. 

If  God's  dealings  with  men  had  ended  here, 
who  shall  say  that  they  had  not  been  a  failure  ? 
Sin  had  its  deadly  sway,  and  death  had  no  one 
to  dispute  his  final  overcoming.  Men's  unforgot- 
ten  but  unrealized  ideals  had  been  only  a  goal  to 
haunt  their  sinking  hopes  and  a  goad  to  torture 
their    jaded   energies.      The   manifesting   mirror 

1  Encyclopedia  of  Sacred  Theology,  p.  305. 


228  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

becomes  the  obscuring  medium,  and  the  cosmos 
which  was  suited  to  reveal  God,  more  and  more 
hides  Him.  The  distance  widens  between  man 
and  God ;  the  Godlike  in  the  soul  dies  out  as  the 
vision  of  the  Godlike  in  the  skies,  the  oceans,  and 
the  forests,  fades  away.  Nature  has  her  sacraments 
and  oracles  for  spirits  untarnished  by  sin,  but  to 
an  erring  race  her  voice  is  feeble  and  her  lessons 
are  grown  pale.  It  is  the  testimony  of  history ; 
every  page  tells  it,  every  nation  illustrates  it,  every 
age  repeats  it ;  "  they  soon  forgat  his  works  ;  they 
waited  not  for  his  counsel."  "  The  world  by  wis- 
dom knew  not  God." 

It  is  not  too  much  to  say,  then,  that  if  the  inci- 
dent of  revelation  had  thus  forever  closed,  man's 
conception  of  God  would  have  always  been  inade- 
quate and  incorrect.  The  cosmical  manifestation 
of  His  nature  would  have  been  incomplete  and, 
therefore,  misleading.  If  man's  sin  had  been 
met  by  sullen  silence  from  the  heavens,  and  his 
need  had  evoked  no  pity  or  promise  from  above, 
who  will  say  that  God's  self-revelation,  stopping 
with  nature,  had  been  either  just  to  Himself  or 
sufficient  to  serve  as  the  basis  of  a  true  concep- 
tion of  Him  in  man  ?  Not  that,  amid  the  exigen- 
cies of  sin,  a  metaphysical  necessity  coerced  Him 
into  a  further  self-disclosure ;  not  that  the  love  of 


THE  COSMOS  AND  SPECIAL  REVELATION    229 

God  did  not  leave  Him  thoroughly  free  to  save 
man  or  not  to  save  him ;  for  love  is  no  love  if  it 
be  but  the  fruit  of  hard  compulsion,  and  unfeeling 
fate  frowns  on  the  gratitude  of  its  beneficiaries ; 
but,  with  tears  and  woes  and  heart-burdens  and 
self-reproaches  among  men,  a  God  who  could 
maintain  an  unbroken  and  impassive  silence  and 
leave  pitiful  but  guilty  mankind  to  sink  lower  and 
lower  into  the  pit  of  death,  were  certainly  not  the 
God  we  know,  "  a  God  full  of  compassion,  and 
gracious,  long-suffering,  and  plenteous  in  mercy 
and  truth." 

Does  it  not  appear,  therefore,  that  sin  becomes 
the  occasion,  if  not  the  condition,  of  a  completer 
revelation  of  God  ?  This  additional  revelation  we 
call  a  special  revelation.  We  insist  not  so  much 
upon  the  word  as  the  idea.  If  we  call  the  cosmos 
a  natural  revelation,  then  we  shall  call  this  extra- 
or  super-natural.  "  Natural "  and  "revealed " 
have  been  used  as  contrasting  terms,  but  they  are 
open  to  just  criticism.  Coleridge  has  a  right  to 
say,  "  All  religion  is  revealed  ;  revealed  religion 
is,  in  my  judgment,  a  mere  pleonasm."  1  We  must 
admit  that  the  contrast  is  not  upon  its  being  re- 
vealed or  not ;  but  both  being  revealed,  how  and 
why.  Dr.  Martineau  says,  with  a  distinction  which 
1  Table-talk,  March  31,  1832. 


230  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

he  clearly  draws,  but  which  we  can  hardly  grant, 
"  Natural  Religion  is  that  in  which  man  finds  God  ; 
Revealed  Religion  is  that  in  which  God  finds 
man."1  He  makes  the  former  mediate  and  the 
latter  immediate,  and,  accordingly,  with  him  re- 
vealed religion  is  an  individualistically  mystical 
rationalism. 

It  is  common  to  say  that  the  one  is  a  revelation 
in  nature  and  the  other  in  grace ;  and  from  this 
usage  we  see  no  good  reason  for  departing.  To 
be  sure,  in  broadest  meanings,  it  is  of  the  grace 
of  God  that  the  worlds  were  made  and  that  man 
exists  at  all ;  but  this  usage  easily  lends  itself  to 
the  Pelagian  reduction  of  divine  grace  to  God's 
works  of  creation  and  providence,  and  is  both  con- 
fusing and  foreign  to  the  faith  of  Christendom. 
The  natural  revelation  is  made  to  the  race  as 
men ;  the  gracious  revelation  to  the  race  as  sin- 
ners. The  latter  sprang  from  the  divine  purpose 
to  save  salvable,  sinful  men.  Its  highest  norm  is 
theodicean,  for  in  its  most  glorious  sweep  and 
its  eternal  issues  it  indicates  and  vindicates  the 
ways  of  God  to  man  as  the  cosmos  could  not 
have  done.  Its  principutm  is  strictly  theological, 
for  in  its  truest  conception,  in  redemption  as  in 
creation,  God  reveals  Himself  for  His  own  sake, 

1  77^  Seat  of  Authority  in  Religion,  p.  302. 


THE  COSMOS  AND  SPECIAL  REVELATION    231 

and  not  only  for  that  of  His  creatures.  But  in  its 
personal  bearings  and  most  precious  meanings  to 
men  it  is  thoroughly  and  emphatically  soterio- 
logical :  the  race  is  ruined,  and  God  would  restore 
it ;  the  race  is  lost,  and  God  would  save  it. 

We  are  by  no  means  justifying  sin  when  we  say 
that  it  is  the  occasion  of  this  gracious  revelation. 
An  occasion  is  neither  a  procuring  cause  nor  the 
only  possible  condition.  President  Edwards  did 
not  hesitate  to  say,  in  one  of  the  greatest  sermons 
he  ever  preached,  "  Sin,  the  greatest  evil,  is  made 
an  occasion  of  the  greatest  good."  !  It  is  certain 
that  our  conception  of  sin  will  determine  our  con- 
ception of  grace.  If  sin  is  natural  and  purely 
individualistic,  then  grace  need  be,  and  is,  nothing 
more  than  nature.  If  sin  is  simply  a  wrong  par- 
ticular volition,  then  the  Pelagian  is  right,  and 
grace,  like  sin,  is  nothing  more  at  most  than  mere 
imitation.  If  sin  is  ignorance,  then  Plato  and 
Emerson  are  right,  and  grace  is  but  intellectual 
enlightenment.  If  sin  is  death-dealing,  then  Paul 
and  Augustine  are  right,  and  grace  must  be  life- 
giving.  The  remedy  waits  upon  the  nature  of  the 
disease.  The  conception  of  a  saviour  takes  its 
character  from  the  condition  of  the  sinner.  If  the 
sinner  is   normal  and  well,  nothing  is  needed;  if 

1  The  Wisdom  of  God  Displayed  in  the  Way  of  Salvation. 


232  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

he  is  sick,  the  physician  is  needed ;  if  he  is  dead 
only  a  new  birth  will  avail. 

It  must  not  be  lost  sight  of  that  the  salvable 
unit  contemplated  in  this  soteriological  revelation 
is  not  the  human  race  only,  but  the  human  race 
together  with  its  cosmical  environment.  The 
human  individual,  as  well  as  the  human  race,  may 
be  regarded,  as  we  have  seen  in  the  fifth  lecture, 
as  but  an  integral  part  of  the  cosmical  unit.  If 
the  fifth  chapter  of  Romans  should  drop  forever 
out  of  Scripture,  the  great  truth  still  stands,  at- 
tested by  science  and  confirmed  by  history,  that 
every  member  of  the  race,  pagan  and  Christian, 
adult  and  infant,  is  full  sharer  in  the  common  lot 
of  humanity  ;  while  we  remember  that  we  are  told 
that  it  was  God's  love  to  the  world — rov  xoa/iov1 — 
which  was  the  moving  cause  in  the  giving  of  His 
Son.  Bearing  this  in  mind,  let  us  notice  how  the 
gracious  revelation  suits  itself  to  the  twofold  ruin, 
subjective  and  objective,  which  we  considered  at 
the  beginning  of  this  lecture.  Man's  faculties 
of  spiritual  perception,  being  extinct,  are  to  be 
quickened  again.  Regenerated  man  is  man  re- 
stored to  his  original  status  and  activities.  Saving 
faith  imparts  no  new  faculty  to  a  man.  New  in- 
citements call  out  a  new  exercise  of  hitherto  latent 
1  John  3:16. 


THE  COSMOS  AND  SPECIAL  REVELATION    233 

powers;  the  new  heart  is  still  human,  but  it  rises 
to  new  experiences.  Sanctification  is  at  least 
rectification  ;  redemption  is  at  least  restoration ; 
spiritual  illumination  is  a  removal  of  the  cataract 
that  has  formed  upon  sinful  eyes,  so  that  they  are 
again  enabled  to  perceive  the  beauty,  the  order, 
and  the  meaning-,  that  had  faded  into  twilight 
shadows  or  into  the  deeper  darkness  of  a  mid- 
night gloom. 

But,  also,  the  sin-disturbed  cosmos  is  to  be 
brought  back  to  its  original  loveliness  and  order. 
Along  with  the  process  of  man's  redemption  there 
is  to  be  a  slow  cosmical  palingenesis,  and  no  man 
knows  what  all  that  means.  The  whole  creation, 
now  subject  to  vanity,  shall  be  freed  from  its  cor- 
rupting bondage  into  the  glorious  liberty  of  the 
children  of  God.  There  is  to  be  "a  new  heaven 
and  a  new  earth  wherein  dwelleth  righteousness" ; 
the  ethical  element  is  essential  to  the  newness  of 
the  creation.  These  bodies  are  to  become  immor- 
tal. The  object  of  redemption  is  not  souls  only, 
but  men.  It  is  a  commonplace  in  physiology  that 
organic  unity  overrides  material  identity.  These 
bodies — shall  we  not  say  this  body,  meaning  by 
the  word  our  whole  cosmical  environment? — 
shared  the  curse  of  sin,  and  they  are  to  be  sharers 
in    the    glories    of   our    deliverance    from    sin. 


234  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

Science  has  no  oracles  with  which  to  predict  or 
to  describe  this  regeneration  of  the  cosmos,  with 
the  redemption  of  its  king-  and  chief  inhabitant, 
man.  Allotropic  forms  and  transformations  may 
suggest  the  marvels  which  it  involves.  The  glit- 
tering diamond  and  the  crude  charcoal  are  the 
same  substance,  while  coarse  sand  becomes  crystal 
glass,  with  no  substantial  changes.  Man's  sin 
means  nature's  curse,  and  man's  redemption  means 
nature's  emancipation.  Matter,  sluggish  and  un- 
responsive, has  been  degraded,  but  it  is  yet  to  be 
restored  to  its  highest  possibilities.  Nature,  now 
unnature,  will  become  her  sane  self  again.  It  has 
been  said,  "  Nature,  thus  sublimated,  as  it  were, 
will  no  longer  be  the  veil  concealing  the  spiritual 
world,  or  the  mere  semblance  of  the  Beautiful  and 
the  Sublime;  but  will  continue  to  be  its  most  ade- 
quate expression."1  And  the  same  writer  adds: 
"  Now  the  purified  world  is  man's  own.  It  now 
becomes  a  system  open  to  his  instantaneous  in- 
sight and  immediate  influence,  no  more  to  be 
forced  into  subjection  by  screws  and  sledges  and 
pulleys  and  derricks,  but  being  at  his  service  vol- 
untarily and  joyfully." 2 

It  will  surely  be  necessary  before  long  to  remind 

1  Schade's  Philosophy  of  History,  p.  430. 
J  Ibid.,  p.  432. 


THE  COSMOS  AND  SPECIAL  REVELATION    235 

ourselves  that  the  content  of  both  the  natural  and 
the  special  revelation  is,  in  general,  susceptible 
of  human  cognition.  We  do  not  now  say  that 
it  is  capable  of  intellectual  formulation;  we  are 
not  anxious  just  now  to  press  the  primacy  of  any 
one  faculty  or  function  of  the  mind.  Professor 
Ormund  suggestively  defines  existence  as  "  pre- 
sentableness  to  consciousness,"  1  and,  as  he  insists 
that  experience  is  a  larger  and  better  concept  than 
knowledge,  we  may  content  ourselves  with  saying 
that  the  revelation-content  in  such  case  is  some- 
how susceptible  of  getting  itself  presented  to  the 
human  consciousness  in  experience.  All  truth  is 
God's  thought,  and  if  some  of  it  is  not  thinkable 
by  man,  the  fault  is  in  man,  not  in  the  truth.  The 
whole  content  of  the  cosmical  revelation,  intellec- 
tually stated,  would  be  the  closed  and  complete 
circuit  of  scientific  truth.  The  whole  content  of 
the  gracious  revelation,  intellectually  stated,  would 
be  an  accurate  and  exhaustive  statement  of  theo- 
logical truth.  The  latter  includes  the  former,  and 
the  former  overlaps  a  large  part  of  the  latter.  The 
gracious  revelation  is  constantly  and  in  a  thousand 
ways  invading  the  sphere  of  cosmical  phenomena, 
and  in  so  far  forth  it  becomes  the  proper  object 
of  scientific  contemplation  ;  while,  on  the  other 
1  See  Foundations  of  Knowledge t  p.  153. 


236  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

hand,  the  fields  and  forces  of  nature  are  very 
influential  in  our  study  of  the  gracious  revelation. 
The  revelation-content  in  each  case  is  the  proper 
subject  of  reverent  intellectual  cognition  and  reflec- 
tion. 

This  being  so,  it  must  needs  be  that  both  alike 
must  enter  into  human  experience,  subject  to  the 
universal  categories  of  that  experience.  If  God 
would  disclose  to  men  the  mysteries  of  His 
own  nature,  He  must  use  terms  borrowed  from 
human  experience  and  familiar  to  human  thought. 
Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  are  terms  men  had  em- 
ployed to  designate  relations  among  themselves, 
and  the  gracious  revelation  seizes  upon  those 
terms  to  indicate  the  transcendental  relations  be- 
tween the  members  of  the  Adorable  Trinity. 
They  are  probably  not  adequate,  but  the  Divine 
veracity  is  involved  in  their  appropriateness  to  the 
purpose  for  which  they  are  employed.  If  divine 
relations  are  to  be  revealed  to  human  minds,  it 
must  be  done  in  terms  which  those  minds  can 
understand  and  appreciate.  A  revelation  to  man 
in  the  language  of  archangels  would  be  no  more 
of  a  revelation  in  effect  than  would  a  letter  to  a 
child  of  six  be  appreciated  if  written  in  the 
language  of  Butler's  Analogy.  If  it  be  really  a 
revelation,  it  must  reveal ;  and  if  it  is  to  reveal,  it 


THE  COSMOS  AND  SPECIAL  REVELATION    237 

must  be  in  terms  which  can  be  understood.  Theo- 
logical statement  and  formulation  no  more  do 
violence  to  spiritual  truths  than  do  scientific  for- 
mulations vitiate  the  verities  of  geology  or  of 
astronomy.  It  is  not  the  scandal  but  the  glory 
of  Christian  truth  that  it  has  been  able  to  get  it- 
self expressed  in  the  legitimate  forms  of  human 
thought.  The  late  Dr.  Hatch  said  that  the  Greeks 
were  "  incapacitated  to  receive  or  to  retain  Chris- 
tianity in  its  primitive  simplicity," l  so  that  in 
Christian  theology  it  is  "  that  philosophy  that  has 
survived."2  But  Professor  H.  M.  Scott  has  well 
said  that  "  it  was  only  a  question  of  time,  as  every 
missionary  to  the  heathen  well  knows,  when  the 
life  and  thought  of  the  Church  must  take  an  in- 
telligent attitude  toward  the  morals,  the  religion, 
and  the  philosophy  of  Greece  and  Rome."3  The 
molds  of  Greek  philosophy  stood  ready  for  the 
gospel,  and  so  far  as  they  were  adapted  to  the 
purpose  they  were  employed.  If  it  be  true  that 
all  men  are  either  Platonists  or  Aristotelians,  then 
the  thought-forms  of  these  great  masters  stood 
waiting  for  the  truth  of  the  Nazarene.     The  lin- 

1  The  Influence  of  Greek  Ideas  and  Usages  upon  the  Christian 
Church,  p.  49; 
2 Ibid.,  p.  269. 
3  Origin  and  Development  of  the  Nicene  Theology,  p.  140. 


238  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

guistic  forms  of  the  Greeks,  with  their  marvelous 
range  and  flexibility,  were  providentially  prepared 
for  use  as  the  vehicles  of  Christian  truth,  and  so 
the  Greek  philosophy,  with  all  its  richness  and 
accuracy  as  to  form,  and  despite  its  haughtiness 
and  error  as  to  spirit  and  substance,  was,  in  the 
providence  of  God,  a  waiting  vessel  of  honor,  des- 
tined to  do  noble  service  for  the  wisdom  which 
cometh  down  from  above.  We  cannot  disown 
human  forms  of  thought  if  we  are  to  think  at  all, 
and  among  all  the  great  philosophies  of  the  past 
we  know  of  none  so  admirably  suited  for  the  high 
and  permanent  uses  of  Christianity  as  that  of 
Greece  in  its  purest  and  palmiest  days.  The  pure 
essence  of  the  Christianity  of  Christ  and  his 
apostles  is  unchanged  to-day.  Weizacker  re- 
marked that  "  Christianity  as  religion  is  unthink- 
able without  theology  "  ; 1  indeed,  theology  is 
nothing  else  than  religion  thought,  as  over  against 
religion  felt  or  acted  out.  When  men  cease  to 
think  about  religion  they  will  cease  to  be  theolo- 
gians ;  it  is  not  the  question  whether  we  shall  be 
theologians  or  not,  but  whether  we  shall  be  good 
ones  or  bad  ones. 

Concerning  the  relation  which  this  special  reve- 

1  See  Scott's   Origin  and  Development  of  the  Nicene  Theology, 
p.  354- 


THE  COSMOS  AND  SPECIAL  REVELATION    239 

lation  sustains  to  the  general  cosmical  one,  at 
least  four  conceivable  views  may  be  mentioned, 
namely :  (I.)  It  is  identical  with  it.  (II.)  It  is 
antagonistic  to  it.  (III.)  It  displaces  it.  (IV.)  It 
supplements  and  interprets  it. 

(I.)  The  first  identifies  the  special  revelation 
with  the  cosmical.  This  is  done  by  naturalism, 
on  one  side,  and  by  pantheism,  on  the  other. 
While  one  naturalizes,  the  other  supernaturalizes,  ■ 
everything.  Each  of  these  methods,  however, 
presupposes  the  other.  Naturalism  affects  to  be 
very  innocent  of  presuppositions,  and  fain  would 
take  things  as  it  finds  them ;  but  Mr.  Balfour  has 
done  fine  service  in  showing  that  naturalism  is 
heavily  loaded  with  implications.  "  Naturalism 
is  nothing  more  than  the  assertion  that  empirical 
methods  are  valid,  and  that  no  others  are  so."1 
"  Jf  naturalism  be  true,  or,  rather,  if  it  be  the  whole 
truth,  then  is  morality  but  a  bare  catalogue  of 
utilitarian  precepts  ;  beauty,  but  the  chance  occa- 
sion of  a  passing  pleasure ;  and  reason,  but  the 
dim  passage  from  one  set  of  unthinking  habits  to 
another."  2  This  is  very  true,  and  we,  therefore, 
may  certainly  excuse  ourselves  just  now  from 
defending  special  revelation  against  the  assaults 
of  a  school  of  thought  which  denies  everything 
1  Foundations  of  Belief,  p.  134.  2  Ibid.,  p.  77. 


240  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

which  is  not  known  by  sense-perception,  and 
which  is  not  the  subject-matter  of  empirical 
science.  The  other  wing  of  the  identity-theory 
is  pantheism.  We  used  to  think  that  in  order  to 
see  a  pantheist  one  must  visit  the  home  of  the 
Hindu  or  call  up  the  shade  of  the  God-intoxicated 
Jew  of  Amsterdam,  but  we  may  find  him  nearer 
home  than  that.  Implicit  pantheism  has  often 
found  an  abiding  place  in  the  pale  of  the  Christian 
Church.  Jonathan  Edwards,  with  his  doctrine  of 
continuous  creation  and  his  "  arbitrary-establish- 
ment theory "  of  identity,  was  not  far  removed 
from  pantheism.  Dr.  Emmons,  with  his  doctrines 
of  absolute  dependence,  of  the  non-existence  of 
second  causes,  and  of  the  direct  divine  creation  of 
human  volitions,  was  a  baptized  pantheist  without 
knowing  it.  Schleiermacher  drew  largely  from 
pantheistic  premises.  The  Malebranchian  view 
of  the  soul,  as  a  series  of  states,  curiously  agrees 
with  Mr.  Spencer's  conception,  and  it  is  a  truism 
that  the  Synthetic  Philosophy  is  as  easily  made 
to  serve  for  pantheism  as  for  materialism. 

But  pantheism  cannot  allow  grace  as  distin- 
guished from  nature.  Not  atheism,  but  acosmism 
is  its  fallacy.  All  is  the  divine  ego  ;  there  is  no 
human  ego.  If  Spinoza  was  the  "  God-intoxicated 
man,"  the   materialist  is  the  "  World-intoxicated 


THE  COSMOS  AND  SPECIAL  REVELATION    241 

man  " ;  and  in  their  implicit  elements  and  practi- 
cal results  neither  has  much  to  boast  over  the 
other. 

(II.)  The  second  relation  which  I  named  was 
that  of  mutual  antagonism.  This  is  the  old  notion 
of  an  irreconcilable  contradiction  between  nature 
and  religion.  It  has  sometimes  been  presented 
as  the  fountain  of  faith,  but  it  is  really  the  matrix 
of  doubt.  God  is  the  author  of  both,  and  if  they 
are  ultimately  contradictory,  then  man  is  not  to 
blame  for  his  doubts.  However,  two  things  must 
be  borne  in  mind  : — 

The  first  is  that  the  world  we  see  to-day  is  not 
exactly  the  pure  product  of  God,  and  the  other  is 
that  the  special  revelation  we  have  is  not  exactly 
as  God  gave  it.  Right  here  is  the  true  meaning 
of  cosmical  research  on  the  one  hand,  and  of 
biblical  study  on  the  other.  Each  has  its  his- 
torical, its  textual,  and  its  hermeneutical  disci- 
plines. God  made  them  true,  but  he  also  made 
them  both  subject  to  the  vicissitudes  and  muta- 
tions of  terrestrial  history ;  and  we  believe  that 
He  did  this  in  order  to  challenge  the  intellectual 
efforts  of  men,  so  that,  in  making  God's  revela- 
tions also  men's  own  discoveries,  the  knowledge 
of  the  truth  may  be  contingent  upon  men's  own 
diligent  inquiry,  and,  by  the  blessing  of  God,  the 

10 


242  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

precious  treasure  may  be  the  reward  of  their  own 
labors  as  well  as  the  answer  to  their  prayers.  We 
see  no  escape  from  utter  intellectual  confusion  if 
we  must  accept  as  final  the  idea  that  nature  and 
religion  are  irreconcilable.  Such  a  judgment  is 
a  slander  upon  God  and  an  insult  to  the  reason 
which  is  in  man.  If  I  must  be  one  thing  in  the 
laboratory  and  another,  contradicting  it,  in  the 
sanctuary ;  if  the  stars  declare  to  me  one  thing, 
and  the  psalmist  or  the  evangelist  tells  me  that 
the  stars  lie;  if  I  am  to  be  one  man  praying 
and  another  thinking ;  one  man  worshiping  God 
and  another  viewing  His  works  ;  one  man  with 
my  head  and  another  with  my  heart,  then,  what- 
ever names  may  be  hurled  at  me  and  whatever 
anathemas  the  churches  may  proclaim,  I  must 
still  insist  that  something  is  fundamentally  and 
constitutionally  wrong  either  with  me — in  which 
case  I  cannot  be  sure  that  I  know  anything  at  all ; 
or  with  God's  world,  which  is  virtually  to  impeach 
the  divine  character ;  or  with  God  Himself,  and  a 
God  with  whom  something  is  fundamentally  and 
constitutionally  wrong  is  no  God.  In  any  case,  I 
am  left  to  live  in  darkness  and  to  die  in  despair. 
(III.)  The  third  view  is  that  the  gracious  revela- 
tion supplants  the  natural,  rendering  it  practically 
nugatory.      This  we  understand   to  be  the  ten- 


THE  COSMOS  AND  SPECIAL  REVELATION    243 

dency  of  Ritschlian  thought.  Following  Kant,  it 
denies  that  the  theoretic  reason  can  know  God, 
thus  dismissing  natural  theology  with  a  single 
bow.  Harnack  declares  that  Christ  and  Chris- 
tianity have  nothing  to  do  with  nature,  and  re- 
gards cosmological  Christology  as  the  corrup- 
tion of  true  Christianity.1  Apologetics  are  out- 
lawed by  sweeping  off  the  field  all  the  points  in 
which  the  believer  and  the  unbeliever  are  agreed.2 
In  any  case,  as  Kaftan  says,  "  the  proof  of  the 
truth  of  Christianity  is  the  proof  of  the  reasonable- 
ness and  absoluteness  of  the  faith  reposed  in  the 
Christian  Revelation "; 3  that  is  to  say,  we  can 
come  no  nearer  to  proving  Christianity  true  than 
merely  to  prove  that  faith  in  it  is  reasonable. 
Most  of  us  will  heartily  consent  that  there  is  a 
subjectively  personal  element  in  Christianity  which 
is  beyond  the  scope  of  apologetics ;  but  shall  we 
not  insist  that  the  objective  factors  in  Christian 
history  must  be  subject  to  the  criteria  of  all  his- 
torical truth  ?  And  yet  we  are  told  by  one  of 
the  most  eminent  representatives  of  Ritschlianism 
that   "  it  is  not   possible  to  prove    to   an  unbe- 

1  See  History  of  Dogma,  Book  I.,  chap.  iv. 

2  See  Scott' s   Origin  and  Development  of  the  Nicene  Theology ; 
p.  162. 

3  Truth  of  the  Christian  Religion,  vol.  ii.,  p.  384.     Italics  his. 


244  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

liever  the  truth  of  the  things  which  a  Christian 
knows  concerning  the  objective  reality." !  Of 
course,  this  leads  Christian  thought  to  "  become 
totally  indifferent  to  the  doctrine  of  the  impor- 
tance of  the  historical  in  Christianity." 2  Indeed, 
religious  truth  refuses  to  be  expressed  in  language 
that  is  either  reasonable  or  consistent ;  "  when  we 
try  to  express  it  we  constantly  fall  into  the  use  of 
conceptions  which  contradict  each  other  and  can- 
not be  combined  in  one  definite  and  consistent 
picture."3 

It  thus  would  appear  that  reason  has  little  to 
do  with  religion ;  metaphysics  is  alike  the  bane 
of  Christianity  and  the  barrier  to  faith ;  the  poet 
is  wrong  in  saying, 

"  God  and  Nature  bid  the  same." 

This  view  merits  severest  condemnation.  The 
New  Testament  of  grace  did  not  come  to  de- 
stroy, but  to  fulfill  the  Old  Testament  of  nature. 
It  does  not  supplant  it  except  as  the  distinct  sup- 
plants the  dim  and  the  complete  the  incomplete. 

'Herrmann's  The  Communion  of  the  Christian  with  God, 
p.  12. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  20  ;  see  also  Orr's  Ritschlian  Theology  and  the 
Christian  Faith,  p.  91. 

8  Orr's  Ritschlian  Theology  and  the  Christian  Faith,  p.  92. 


THE  COSMOS  AND  SPECIAL  REVELATION    245 

The  rising  sun  supplants  the  fading  glory  of  the 
morning  star.  The  official  bulletin  supplants  the 
fugitive  rumors  in  the  gossip  of  the  Court.  Thus, 
and  thus  only,  does  Christianity  supplant  nature 
by  a  fuller,  clearer,  stronger  setting  forth  of  her 
lost  and  neglected  meanings. 

(IV.)  The  fourth  view  of  the  relation  of  the 
special  to  the  cosmical  revelation  is  that  it  sup- 
plements, interprets,  and  confirms  it.  The  soteri- 
ological  idea  is  determinative  throughout.  Nature 
is  inadequate  as  a  source  of  knowledge  of  God  to 
man  in  his  present  state.  Unfallen  man  needed 
no  Bible,  and,  in  a  certain  sense  it  is  true,  the 
Bible  will  be  out  of  date  in  heaven.  Nature  can- 
not save  man  from  sin,  and  man's  need  is  God's 
occasion.  It  is  in  this  aspect  of  it  that  we  can 
speak  of  gracious  revelation  as  provisional  and 
temporary.  Dr.  Kuyper  says  :  "  Our  human  race, 
once  fallen  in  sin,  can  have  no  more  supply  of 
pure  or  sufficient  knowledge  of  God  from  the 
natural  principium.  Consequently,  God  effects 
an  auxiliary  revelation  for  our  human  race,  which, 
from  a  special  principium  of  its  own  and  under 
necessary  conditions,  places  a  knowledge  of  God 
within  the  reach  of  the  sinner  which  is  suited  to 
his  condition."1     This  second  principium   is  en- 

1  Encyclopedia  of  Sacred  Theology,  p.  361.     Italics  his. 


246  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

tircly  harmonious  with  the  first;  it  deepens  the 
lines  and  strengthens  the  intonations  of  the  first. 
It  discloses  truth  which  nature  now  conceals,  and 
which  reason  is  now  impotent  to  discover.  Its 
object  is  specifically  different.  Nature  manifested 
God  to  sinless  man,  but  when  man  fell  nature's 
voice  was  muffled.  At  best,  her  messages  were 
not  attuned  to  the  needs  of  doomed  and  dying 
men.  Her  revealings  were  to  the  unfallen  scien- 
tist, poet,  mystic,  and  saint.  But  sin  created  a 
new  need ;  it  introduced  a  new  condition ;  and  to 
meet  these  a  new  revelation  was  effected.  Its  aim 
is  not  to  satisfy  speculative  curiosity,  not  to  in- 
form scientific  inquiry,  not  to  enrich  intellectual 
resources ;  it  was  to  reclaim  a  morally  bankrupt 
world,  to  bring  life  to  a  race  "  dead  in  trespasses 
and  sins,"  to  "  seek  and  to  save  the  lost."  The 
one  supreme,  controlling,  determinative  element  is 
redemptive,  and  in  the  light  of  this  one  aim  all  its 
contents  are  to  be  read,  all  its  relations  are  to  be 
construed,  and  all  its  results  are  to  be  appreciated. 
It  is  not  our  purpose  now  to  discuss  miracles 
and  their  place  in  the  development  of  this  special 
revelation.  In  my  own  judgment,  a  proper  under- 
standing of  that  revelation  greatly  relieves  some 
traditional  difficulties  attending  the  subject.  Not 
only  does  the  possibility  of  miracles  fall  as  a  cor- 


THE  COSMOS  AND  SPECIAL  REVELATION   247 

ollary  from  theism,  as  Mr.  J.  S.  Mill  said,  but,  also, 
the  probability  of  them  is  a  corollary  from  a  true 
conception  of  gracious  revelation.  The  spiritual 
disorder  in  man  calls  for  psychical  manifestations, 
and  these  we  call  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
men's  hearts ;  and  the  cosmical  disorder  calls  for 
physical  manifestations,  and  these  we  call,  in  com- 
mon speech,  miracles.  The  special  revelation  is 
supernatural,  and  miracles  are  only  the  shining 
through  of  the  supernatural  in  the  midst  of  the 
ordinary  phenomena  of  the  natural  sphere.  True 
enough,  nature  itself  is  a  theophany,  only  men 
have  forgotten  to  see  God  there ;  they  "  have  not 
God  in  all  their  thoughts."  Miracles  are  not 
after-thoughts ;  God  does  not  need  to  "  tinker " 
with  an  imperfect  world  which  He  has  created. 
Every  miracle  is  an  organic  part  of  a  great  proc- 
ess. It  is  not  an  isolated  event,  cut  off  from 
every  other.  The  smallest  miracle — miracidum — 
gets  its  meaning  and  placement  from  the  age-long, 
organic,  historic,  process  of  the  special  revelation 
of  which  it  is  a  part.  We  must  never  divorce  the 
little  miracle  from  the  great  redemptive  plan  of 
which  it  is  not  only  an  evidence,  but  also  a  consti- 
tuting part.  "  We  shall  more  accurately  say  that, 
while  miracles  have  their  evidential  value,  they 
are  still  a  part  of  the  whole  for  which  they  stand. 


248  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

Christianity  minus  miracles  would  be  per  se  a  dif- 
ferent thing  entirely  from  Christianity  as  it  is."1 

To  be  sure,  there  is  a  sense  in  which  we  shall 
say,  in  good  faith,  that  miracles  evidentially  sup- 
port Christianity  ;  and  there  is  another  sense,  not 
less  important,  in  which  we  shall  say  that  Chris- 
tianity supports  miracles.  Granted  the  soterio- 
logical  revelation,  supernatural  in  its  origin,  its 
purpose,  and  its  processes,  and  just  such  miracu- 
lous occurrences  as  are  recorded  in  the  canonical 
Christian  writings  would  be  most  reasonably 
expected. 

Neither  can  we  now  speak  at  proper  length  of 
the  place  of  Scripture  in  this  gracious  revelation. 
We  have  already  shown  that  the  substantial  con- 
tent of  it  is  susceptible  of  reduction  to  intelligible 
literary  forms  of  statement.  We  do  not  for  one 
moment  believe,  with  Herrmann,  that  Christianity 
contradicts  itself  as  soon  as  it  tries  to  get  itself 
expressed  intelligibly.  There  is  a  sense,  then,  in 
which  we  believe  that  Christianity  may  become  a 
"  book  religion."  Not  that  all  the  contents  of 
that  revelation  can  be  packed  within  the  lids  of  a 
single  volume.  But  an  understandable  statement 
of  its  great  germinal,  essential  elements  can.  God 
has  not  chosen  mystically  to  communicate  this  reve- 

1  The  author's  Christianity  Supernatural,  p.  1 8. 


THE  COSMOS  AND  SPECIAL  REVELATION    249 

lation-content  to  every  man,  individualistically ;  but 
only  to  a  certain  number  of  men  who,  by  His  call, 
became  the  media  through  whom  He  conveyed 
the  truth  to  mankind.  These  certain  ones  He 
qualified  to  communicate  in  these  truths  with  their 
fellows  by  the  unique  enduement  of  inspiration. 
This  is  designed  to  be  a  safeguard  against  the 
refracting  tendencies  incident  to  human  ignorance, 
prejudice,  and  error.  The  Christian's  Bible  is 
simply  the  handbook  of  this  gracious  revelation, 
in  which  its  essential  elements  are  expressed  in 
literary  form.  The  Bible  is  sacred  on  account  of 
what  it  contains.  An  American  field  officer  in 
the  Philippines  was  saved  from  death  in  battle  by 
a  little  Testament  in  his  breast  pocket  which 
stayed  the  deadly  bullet  in  its  course  toward  his 
heart.  The  same  protection  might  have  been 
afforded  by  a  scientific  text-book  or  by  a  gam- 
bler's deck  of  cards.  Protestant  reverence  for  the 
word  of  God  is  no  base  superstition  of  bibliolatry. 
Dr.  Kuyper  quotes  Guido  de  Bres  approvingly  as 
saying,  "That  which  we  call  Holy  Scripture  is 
not  paper  with  black  impressions,  but  that  which 
addresses  our  spirits  by  means  of  these  impres- 
sions ; "  and  then  Dr.  Kuyper  adds  for  himself 
these  words :  "  These  letters  are  but  tokens  of 
recognition ;    these   words    are    only   the    clicks 


250  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

of  the  telegraph  key  signaling  thoughts  to  our 
spirits  along  the  lines  of  our  visual  and  auditory- 
nerves."  x 

The  Bible  is  to  Protestants  the  book  which 
substantially  contains  and  truthfully  presents  the 
content  of  the  gracious  revelation,  and  hence 
their  jealous  and  affectionate  reverence  for  the 
word  of  God.  It  is  folly  to  deny  that,  because 
God  has  committed  His  truth  to  a  book,  therefore 
that  book  is  not  to  be  treated,  in  the  first  instance, 
as  other  books  ;  we  should  rather  confidently  draw 
the  exactly  opposite  conclusion,  otherwise  He 
would  not  have  chosen  the  literary  form  for  that 
revelation.  Here  is  the  divine  franchise  for  every 
legitimate  form  of  biblical  criticism  and  research. 
A  mere  fides  implicita  in  Holy  Scripture  is  a 
devotion  born  of  ignorance,  a  veneration  which  is 
only  blind  superstition.  The  Bible  was  produced 
among  conditions  generally  characteristic  of  liter- 
ary production,  and  hence  the  tasks  of  historical 
criticism;  its  history  has  not  been  exempt  from 
the  vicissitudes  of  literary  forms,  and  hence  the 
tasks  of  textual  criticism  ;  it  is  to  be  read  and 
understood  according  to  the  accredited  rules  of 
literary  interpretation,  and  hence  the  tasks  of 
hermeneutical   study.     The    Scriptures,   and   the 

1  The  Work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  p.  57. 


THE  COSMOS  AND  SPECIAL  REVELATION    251 

Scriptures  only,  are  to  us  the  literary  embodiment 
of  the  truth  conveyed  in  this  gracious  revelation ; 
and  this  is  at  once  the  reason  why  we  accept  it  as 
a  book  among  books,  and  why  we  accept  it  as  a 
unique  volume  in  all  the  realm  of  literature,  the 
very  Book  of  books. 

And  this  speeds  us  on  to  the  question  whether 
or  not  this  special  revelation  may  be  reduced  to 
the  ordinary  categories  of  human  thought.  If 
we  are  asked  whether  it  could  be  brought  into 
scientific  formulae,  we  unhesitatingly  answer  that, 
if  by  science  is  meant  merely  cosmical  science,  it 
can  not.  Gracious  revelation  is  super-cosmical  or 
it  is  nothing;  and  how  can  the  confessedly  super- 
cosmical  be  reduced  to  the  categories  of  cosmical 
knowledge?  Science  can  take  cognizance  of 
gracious  forces  whenever  they  invade  the  region 
of  scientific  observation ;  but  as  to  the  origin,  the 
rationale,  and  the  aim  of  those  forces,  phenome- 
nological  science  is  agnostic.  Such  science  is 
dumb  in  the  presence  of  personality.  We  regard 
it  as,  in  so  far  forth,  an  evidence  of  the  divinity 
of  Christianity  that  it  puts  scientific  wisdom  to 
confusion ;  if  it  were  otherwise,  whatever  else  it 
might  be,  it  were  not  a  supernatural  revelation 
come  from  God. 

But    it    is    another  question  if  we   are   asked 


252  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

whether  Christianity  is  susceptible  of  philosophi- 
cal formulation.  Two  things  we  must  not  forget, 
namely :  Man  is,  constitutionally,  finite,  that  is  to 
say,  his  powers  are  limited ;  and  these  finite 
powers  are  darkened  and  handicapped  by  reason 
of  sin.  Now  there  is  no  denying  that  there  is 
truth  in  Coleridge's  idea  that  reason  is  never  a 
thing  of  degree,  as  well  as  in  Mr.  A.  J.  Balfour's 
reminder  that  men  often  talk  about  reason  when 
they  mean  only  right  reason.  To  be  sure,  in 
the  end,  only  right  reason  is  entitled  to  be  called 
reason  at  all.  Reason  is  properly  only  an  attri- 
bute, never  an  entity ;  it  is  only  rational  spirits 
that  exist.  We  often  speak  of  the  Infinite  Reason 
when  we  deceive  ourselves  by  a  hypostasis  of  our 
own  creation.  God  alone  is  infinite.  There  is  no 
such  thing  as  the  Absolute,  the  Infinite,  the  infi- 
nitely Rational.  These  are  only  adjectives  with 
their  noun  suppressed.  They  are  merely  attri- 
butes of  the  Infinite  God. 

Now  God,  the  infinitely  rational,  has  all  knowl- 
edge; if  He  had  not,  shall  we  not  say  He  could 
hardly  be  infinitely  rational  ?  We  are  made  in 
His  image,  and  are,  therefore,  rational  beings ; 
but  the  tract  of  our  knowledge  is  narrow  and  our 
powers  of  intellection  are  very  infirm.  Never- 
theless, herein  is  our  likeness  to  God,  and  herein 


THE  COSMOS  AND  SPECIAL  REVELATION    253 

is  the  possibility  of  our  intercourse  with  Him, 
that  what  is  rational  with  God  is  rational  with  us, 
and  what  is  right  to  God  is  right  to  us.  Ideally, 
this  is  perfectly  true,  but,  even  here,  the  univer- 
sally vitiating  influence  of  sin  must  be  taken  into 
the  account. 

Human  reason — to  adopt  the  common  mode 
of  speech — is  identical  with  the  divine.  The 
substantive  is  the  same  in  both  cases ;  it  is  the 
adjectives  that  mark  the  differ  entice :  And  these 
differences  are  because,  in  us  sinful  men,  we  mis- 
take many  things  for  reasonable  which  are  not 
reasonable  at  all.  Our  reason  is  often  wrong 
reason, — it  is  folly.  This  is  why  it  is  written,  "  I 
will  destroy  the  wisdom  of  the  wise,  and  will  bring 
to  nothing  the  understanding  of  the  prudent; 
.  .  .  .  because  the  foolishness  of  God  is  wiser 
than  men."1  Paul  tells  us,  what  history  abun- 
dantly confirms,  that  "  the  world  by  wisdom 
knew  not  God."2  And  yet  the  profoundly  devout 
Edwards  has  said :  "  If  we  had  as  clear  an  idea  of 
universal  infinite  entity,  as  we  have  that  twice  two 
are  four  or  that  a  circle  has  no  angles,  I  suppose 
we  should  most  intuitively  see  the  absurdity  of 
supposing  such  Being  not  to  be ;  should  immedi- 
ately see  that  there  is  no  room  for  the  question 
1  1  Cor.  1  :  19,  25.  2  Ibid.,  v.  21. 


254  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

whether  it  is  possible  that  Being,  in  the  most 
general  abstracted  notion  of  it,  should  not  be. 
But  we  have  not  that  strength  and  extent  of 
mind  to  know  this  certainly  in  this  intuitive  inde- 
pendent manner."  1 

Special  revelation  presents  more  mysteries  to  a 
child  of  seven 2  than  to  a  man  of  forty  and  to  an 
ignorant  person  than  to  a  thoughtful  and  enlight- 
ened one.  Many  a  mystery  of  our  childhood 
vanishes  before  the  maturer  thought  of  later 
years.  The  old  doctrines  of  the  Gnosis  and  the 
Pistis  are  but  curious  relics  now,  and  yet  there 
was  an  element  of  truth  in  them ;  not  that  faith 
and  knowledge  are  mutually  exclusive,  but  that 
with  clearer  vision  and  wider  horizons,  under  the 
divine  illumination,  many  a  truth  which  was  once 
accepted  upon  the  basis  of  a  distant  authority,  may 
become  to  us  a  truth  of  most  intimate  and  imme- 
diate consciousness,  brooking  no  dispute. 

But  men  are  children,  indeed.  Some  of  us  are 
more  advanced  than  others.  We  are  told  that 
Newton  had  such  an  intuitive  mathematical  in- 

1  Freedom  of  the  Will,  Part  I.,  sec.  iii. 

*  See  a  very  interesting  paragraph  in  President  Edwards' 
Mysteries  of  Scripture,  in  which  he  supposes  revelation  to  have 
been  given  to  a  race  of  beings  having  only  the  capacity  of  chil- 
dren.    Works,  vol.  iii.,  538. 


THE  COSMOS  AND  SPECIAL  REVELATION    255 

sight  that  he  saw  at  a  glance  through  propositions 
which  others  had  to  wrestle  with  for  weeks.  By 
the  genius  born  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  the  saint 
has  spiritual  insight  into  the  truths  of  revelation. 
Like  some  great  Newton  contemplating  things 
spiritual,  he  sees  more  of  the  sweet  and  consis- 
tent reasonableness  of  the  thoughts  and  ways  of 
God  than  do  we  of  meaner  vision  who  dwell  on 
lower  and  less  sunny  levels.  Not  that  his  faith  is 
made  less  needful;  it  is  just  because  his  faith  is 
stronger  than  ours  that  his  vision  is  the  clearer 
and  the  keener.  But  the  homo  is  finite.  An 
angel,  excelling  us  in  strength,  whose  eye  is  un- 
dimmed  by  sin,  as  he  peers  into  the  mysteries  of 
redemption,  sees  mysteries  deep  and  divine  still  ; 
but  we  may  well  believe  that  some  of  the  anti- 
nomies of  our  human  ignorance  and  doubt  melt 
out  and  disappear  before  his  gaze.  There  are 
fewer  gaps  and  breaks  in  his  spiritual  outlook 
than  in  ours.  And  to  the  archangel,  with  loftier 
powers  and  more  penetrating  vision  still,  the  field 
of  view  is  clearer,  and  smoother,  and  brighter  yet. 
But  we  must  not  be  guilty  of  the  pctitio  priu- 
cipii,  by  deftly  assuming  that  the  intellectual  dis- 
crepancies are  to  be  exorcised  by  transubstan- 
tiating them  into  merely  spiritual  difficulties.  We 
are  just  now  trying  to  hold  ourselves  to  the  intel- 


256  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

lectual  aspect  of  Christianity,  and  we  are  contend- 
ing that  if  only  our  sphere  of  cognition  were 
broad  enough,  and  our  rational  powers  normal 
and  under  complete  control,  there  would  be  no 
such  difficulties.  If  it  be  said  that  still  this  is 
begging  the  question,  we  demur  to  the  charge. 
We  have  been  misled  by  the  too  often  unchal- 
lenged but  wholly  vicious  contrast  between  faith 
and  reason.  We  imagine  that  we  go  under  the 
escort  of  reason  as  far  as  she  can  take  us,  and  that 
then  we  intrust  ourselves  to  faith  as  our  guide. 
The  solid  truth  is  that  faith  is  possible  or  impossi- 
ble to  rational  minds  according,  all  in  all,  as  its 
object  is  held  to  be  reasonable  or  unreasonable. 
Our  faith  is  in  God  because  we  believe  God  to  be 
infinitely  reasonable.  We  believe  in  God's  reve- 
lation because  we  believe  that  that  revelation  is 
intrinsically  rational.  We  accept  Christianity  be- 
cause we  believe  it,  in  itself,  reasonable.  We  do 
not  for  one  moment  doubt  the  rationality  of  what 
we  believe,  for  that  would  be  simply  to  reject  it 
in  such  a  way  as  not  to  let  our  left  hand  know 
what  our  right  hand  doeth.  This  were  trifling 
and  frivolous,  indeed.  Our  doubt,  so  far  as  the 
intellectual  elements  in  Christianity  are  con- 
cerned, fastens  itself  upon  ourselves,  not  upon 
the   object   of  our   faith ;   we   do   not  ordinarily 


THE  COSMOS  AND  SPECIAL  REVELATION    257 

doubt  the  veracity  of  our  faculties,  but  we  are 
conscious  of  their  limited  capacities.  To  the 
angel  these  are  fewer  than  to  the  sage,  and  to 
the  sage  they  are  fewer  than  to  the  child  of 
seven.  We  believe  that  this  is  the  truth  in  the 
Critique  of  the  Pure  Reason.  Rationalism  belongs 
only  to  the  throne  of  God ;  it  has  no  room  among 
finite  spirits,  where  ignorance  exists  and  sin 
abounds. 

There  are  supernal  heights  where  faith,  pre- 
eminently rational  always,  is  able  to  look  out  over 
the  rough  places,  as  they  seem  to  us,  and  see  them 
made  smooth,  and  to  behold  the  crooked  places 
made  straight.  There  comes  a  time  when  we 
shall  no  longer  see  through  a  glass  darkly,  but 
there  never  shall  come  a  time  when  finite  man 
shall  have  thrown  off  his  constitutional  limita- 
tions ;  and  so  we  may  never  expect  to  solve  and 
dissolve  all  the  mysteries  of  God's  truth,  and  to 
compass  and  comprehend  all  the  mighty  marvels 
of  His  grace.  If  rationalism  dispenses  with  faith, 
then  heaven  through  eternal  ages  will  be  travel- 
ling farther  away  from  the  home  of  the  rationalist. 

But  we  hold  on  to  the   rationalness  of  God's 

revelation    and    to    the    reasonableness    of    our 

accepting  it  by  faith.     The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 

has  transcendental  elements  which  no  Hegel  can 

17 


258  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

philosophize ;  but  it  is  because  of  the  smallness 
of  a  human  Hegel,  not  because  Trinitarianism  is 
anti-philosophical.  The  doctrine  of  the  Atone- 
ment has  in  it  elements  too  profound  to  be 
pressed  into  the  molds  of  human  ethics;  but  the 
trouble  is  with  the  molds,  not  that  the  Atone- 
ment is  contra-ethical.  There  are  mysteries  in 
the  constitution  of  the  Theanthropic  Christ  which 
transcend  human  psychology  and  defy  the  tests 
of  human  experience ;  the  trouble  is  with  the 
human  measuring  rods,  not  with  the  historical 
fact  of  the  Incarnate  God-man. 

If  this  be  heresy,  then  we  must  face  the  stake. 
Our  faith  is  not  in  spite  of  our  reason ;  it  cannot 
be.  Our  faith  is  in  what  our  reason  cannot  fully 
compass,  and  we  accept  it  because  we  believe  that, 
if  our  reason  could  fully  compass  it,  it  would 
then  be  to  us  manifestly  reasonable.  This  is  no 
doctrine  of  ultimate  antinomies.  This  is  not 
settling  down  to  the  absolutely  irrational  position 
that  we  accept  this  by  faith  here  and  we  accept 
that  by  faith  there,  while,  at  the  same  time,  we 
believe  that  this  and  that  squarely  contradict  each 
other.  Indeed,  there  can  be  no  rational  and 
healthy  faith  so  long  as  there  is  a  belief  that  this 
and  that  may  contradict  each  other ;  for  the  lurk- 
ing suspicion,  in  so  far   as  it  lurks,  haunts  and 


THE  COSMOS  AND  SPECIAL  REVELATION    259 

hinders  the  sound  faith  of  the  soul.  The  very- 
thing  that  we  believe  is  that  the  things  believed 
are  worthy  of  our  belief,  that  is,  are  reasonable, 
right,  true.  The  analysis  of  the  act  of  faith 
always  discloses  a  confidence  that  its  object  is 
in  itself  and  in  its  relations  rational  and  right. 

No,  no ;  Christianity  is  not  a  human  philosophy ; 
nor  can  it  ever  become  so.  Men  have  called 
Plato  the  "  divine  philosopher  " ;  but  it  was  only 
a  metaphorical  compliment  to  the  magnificent 
mental  sweep  of  the  sage  of  the  Academy.  The 
infinitely  rational  God  is  the  only  Divine  Philoso- 
pher, and  to  Him,  to  Him  alone,  if  we  may  speak 
after  the  manner  of  men,  is  all  truth  a  manifest 
and  manifold  philosophy.  As  we  approach  Him, 
the  tract  of  truth  becomes  more  luminous  and 
clear.  Not  in  the  pride  of  our  own  wisdom  must 
we  become  "  as  gods  "  ;  for  along  that  way  it  was 
that  the  eyes  of  men  were  darkened  and  their  path 
was  insuperably  closed.  But  through  faith  in  the 
revelation  of  His  grace  we  may  become  the  "  sons 
of  God,"  and  then  we  shall  see  light  in  His  light 
and  know  Him  as  He  is. 

"  Whene'er  the  mist  that  stands  'twixt  God  and  thee 
Defecates  to  a  pure  transparency, 
That  intercepts  no  light  and  adds  no  stain — 
There  Reason  is,  and  there  begins  her  reign."1 

1  Coleridge's  Works,  vol.  vi.,  p.  I43.     Harper's  ed. 


LECTURE   VIII 

THE    INCARNATION    THE    CON- 
GRUOUS  CLIMAX   OF   ALL 
REVELATION 


LECTURE  VIII 

THE  INCARNATION  THE   CONGRUOUS  CLIMAX  OF 
ALL  REVELATION 

We  have  seen  that  Special  Revelation  has  for 
its  meaning  Redemption.  The  occasion  for  it 
was  the  world's  need  of  it.  Cosmical  history- 
minus  sin  would  have  been  cosmical  history- 
minus  redemption  from  sin.  Hamartiology  pre- 
determines soteriology.  If  sin  is  a  fiction,  then 
salvation  is  but  a  fanatic's  fancy,  and  a  saviour  has 
none  other  than  a  fool's  errand  among  men ;  for 
"  they  that  are  whole  need  not  a  physician,  but 
they  that  are  sick." 

This  special  revelation,  in  addressing  itself  to 
men,  must  needs  conform  itself  to  the  conditions 
upon  which  men's  perception  and  reception  of 
it  are  possible.  It  must  present  itself  in  the 
general  field  of  their  experience ;  it  must  impress 
itself  upon  the  circle  of  their  thought;  it  must 
introduce  itself  into  the  sphere  of  their  life. 
There  will  not  be  any  violent  wrench  of  the  regu- 
lar and  uniform  order  of  nature  with  which  men 
are  familiar;  for  in  this  world,  sinful  as  it  is,  God 

263 


264  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

is  yet  ever  active  and  immanent.  The  "  Lofty 
One  that  inhabiteth  eternity"  has  not  forsaken 
this  little  world  of  ours,  nor  has  the  presence  of 
evil  banished  His  presence  from  the  terrestrial 
fields  of  His  creation.  It  is  a  great  mistake  to 
suppose  that  because  there  is  bad  in  the  world, 
therefore  the  world  is  all  and  altogether  bad. 
The  venerable  and  scriptural  doctrine  of  total 
depravity  is  not  that  the  world  is  totally  depraved 
so  much  as  that  the  total  world  is  depraved. 
If  a  very  small  quantity  of  poisonous  acid  is 
poured  into  a  cask  of  wine,  the  totality  of  the 
wine  is  vitiated ;  but  it  is  not  totally  vitiated, 
in  the  sense  that  it  would  not  be  more  com- 
pletely vitiated  if  a  quart  of  the  poison  had  been 
poured  in. 

All  of  the  world's  moral  life  is  depraved  by  sin, 
but  it  is  not  absolutely  and  altogether  depraved  ; 
otherwise  every  sinful  man  is  as  depraved  as  he 
possibly  can  be,  and  the  unregenerate  are  wholly 
given  over  to  Satan  and  his  cruel  mercies.  This 
is  cosmological  pessimism  with  a  vengeance ;  it 
would  make  the  world,  seeing  that  sin  has  come 
into  it,  a  reprobate  and  unsalvable  Gehenna,  at 
once.  The  idea  of  totality  is  predicable  of  the 
scope,  not  of  the  degree,  of  the  depravity.  The 
totality  of  the  individual  man  is  depraved,  but  yet 


THE  CLIMAX  OF  ALL  REVELATION       265 

not  so  utterly  and  entirely  depraved  as  he  might 
be,  and  as  by  the  further  withdrawal  of  the  re- 
straints of  common  grace,  he  will  be.  Exactly 
so,  also,  it  is  with  the  world  under  sin.  God  has 
not  forsaken  his  world  nor  abrogated  the  seat  of 
power  upon  its  throne.  The  doctrine  of  sin  is 
not  the  equivalent  of  deism ;  because  God  suffers 
Himself  to  be  resisted  and  disobeyed,  we  must 
not  conclude  that  He  is  an  "  Absentee  God." 
This  world  is  a  battle  field,  not  a  cemetery ;  there 
is  in  it  a  strife  between  good  and  evil,  not  an 
absolute  and  irremediable  sway  of  diabolism  and 
death.  God's  cosmical  energy  is  everywhere 
present  and  everywhere  active.  Science  may  call 
it  potential  or  kinetic,  but  its  very  manifesting 
declares  that  God  is  here.  We  may  believe  in 
second  causes  or  in  the  Great  First  Cause  only ; 
but  second  causes  can  exist  and  persist  only  in 
and  by  the  omnipotent  Causa  Causans.  We  may 
draw  distinctions  between  the  cosmical  and  the 
gracious  energy  of  God,  but  every  manifestation 
of  His  energy  is  a  revelation  of  the  same  One 
Living  and  True  God.  The  God  of  the  cosmos 
is  the  God  of  all  grace.  His  immanence  only 
makes  His  special  revelation  all  the  more  credi- 
ble. If  God  be  in  the  cosmos  everywhere,  then 
He  can  speak    not   only  in   I  lis  wonted  tones  of 


266  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

law  and  order  but  also  in  His  clearer,  sharper 
notes  when  and  where  and  how  He  will.  So  then 
there  is  truth  in  the  idea  that  the  special  revela- 
tion is  the  throwing  off  of  the  incognito,  the  more 
manifest  theophany  than  sinful  men  perceive  in 
the  stars  and  in  the  flowers. 

The  history  of  redemptive  revelation,  then, 
becomes  in  a  measure  a  part  of  the  history  of  the 
cosmos.  It  conforms  itself  largely  to  the  nor- 
mal laws  of  historical  growth.  "  There  is  a  his- 
toric and  progressive  development.  The  end  is 
latent  in  the  beginning,  and  the  beginning  is 
patent  in  the  end.  It  is  '  first  the  blade,  then  the 
ear,  then  the  full  corn  in  the  ear.'  The  revelation 
at  every  stage  conforms  to  moral  and  psycho- 
logical conditions  induced  by  antecedent  stages. 
The  fullness  of  time  presupposes  preparatory 
chronological  eras."  1 

This  is  not  at  all  to  concede  that  Christianity 
is  only  a  naturalistically  evolved  product.  But  it 
could  not  have  come  so  near  to  men  if  it  had 
squarely  defied  or  belied  the  methods  with  which 
men  are  familiar.  The  verbal  dictation  of  the 
Koran  were  not  more  credible  or  more  helpful 
than  a  revelation  which  utilizes  and  passes  through 

1  Author's  article,  "  Authority  in  Religion,"  in  Presb.  and Rff. 
Review,  April,  1900. 


THE  CLIMAX  OF  ALL  REVELATION        267 

the  medium  of  thinking  minds  and  throbbing 
hearts  in  living  men.  The  object  of  special  reve- 
lation would  have  been  defeated  if  its  whole  con- 
tent had  been  bodily  presented  to  the  race  imme- 
diately after  the  first  fall  into  sin.  The  race  must 
be  prepared  for  the  fullness  of  the  message,  and  the 
fullness  of  the  message  must  be  prepared  for  the 
race.  The  earlier  stages  were  designed  to  school 
the  world  for  later  and  larger  unfoldings.  Prophet 
must  come  before  apostle  and  type  before  anti- 
type. The  law  is  a  "  schoolmaster  "  to  bring  men 
to  Christ.  No  one  supposes  that  John  the  Baptist 
could  have  exchanged  places  with  Elijah  the 
Tishbite,  or  psalmist  and  prophet  with  John  and 
Paul,  without  a  very  radical  impairment  of  the 
whole  scheme  of  gracious  revelation. 

However,  if  this  gracious  revelation  is  to  avail  as 
a  corrective  of  the  cosmical,  which  has  so  largely 
failed,  then  it  must  be  immune  against  the  degrad- 
ing influences  which  corrupted  the  cosmical.  Sin 
has  affected  the  one ;  why  should  it  not  also  affect 
the  other  ?  Man  is  finite  and  infirm ;  and  how, 
then,  shall  he  be  the  adequate  medium  for  the 
communication  of  heavenly  messages  from  God  ? 
This  is  the  objection  which  Dr.  Martineau  urged 
with  so  much  force  when  he  said,  "  The  heavenly 
message  in  the  earthen  jar,  the  ethereal  perfume 


268  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

in  the  tainting  medium,  the  everlasting  truth  in 
the  fragile  receptacle — this  is  just  the  combination 
which  does  not  content  the  weakness  and  distrust 
of  men."  "  You  cannot  receive  the  light  on  a 
refracting  surface,  yet  expect  it  to  pursue  its  way- 
still  straight  and  colorless."  "  Come  whence  it 
may,  from  Nature  or  from  Grace,  new  truth,  once 
committed  to  the  mind,  falls  into  fallible  custody." x 
It  cannot  be  denied  that  this  view  is  very  plau- 
sible, but  it  is  necessary  to  note  that  it  points  to 
one  of  two  positions. 

The  first  of  these  is  that  no  man  can  possibly 
be  a  trustworthy  witness  of  divine  truth  to  an- 
other, and,  therefore,  if  God  has  any  communica- 
tion to  make  to  men  He  must  make  it  to  each 
of  them  immediately  and  individualistically.  A 
revelation  "  at  first  hand,"  to  use  Dr.  Martineau's 
expression,  is  the  only  kind  of  revelation  possible. 
The  other  position  is  that  God  is  able  to  correct 
or  counteract  the  "  refracting "  elements  in  men, 
and  in  doing  this  He  can  use  men  as  His  prophets 
and  organs  in  conveying  His  will  and  truth  to 
their  fellows.  Herein,  precisely,  is  the  significance 
and  value  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  Inspiration. 
It  is  aside  from  our  purpose  to  speak  of  this  at 
any  length ;  but  there  are  two  thoughts  to  which 

1  Scat  of  Authority  in  Religion,  pp.  2S8,  289,  290. 


THE  CLIMAX  OF  ALL  REVELATION        269 

we  ask  attention  before  passing  on.  The  first  is 
that  without  this  factor  of  Inspiration,  oral  and 
graphical,  historical  Christianity,  in  any  such  lit- 
erary form  as  we  believe  it  to  be  embodied  in  the 
Scriptures,  were  utterly  impossible.  The  Bible 
ceases  to  be  a  unique  volume.  Isaiah  and  John 
and  Paul  may  have  received  God's  truth  for  them- 
selves, but  when  they  would  fain  tell  that  truth  to 
us,  it  passes  through  the  refracting  medium  of 
their  nature  and  hence  is  no  longer  God's  truth 
to  us.  If  God  has  a  word  for  me,  let  Him  speak 
it  to  me,  and  not  to  John  or  Peter  or  Paul.  The 
Gospel  according  to  John,  ipso  facto,  is  to  me 
John's  Gospel  and  not  God's.  Accordingly,  all 
historical  development  and  organic  unity  of  reve- 
lation is  dissolved  into  innumerable  atomistic 
revelations  conveyed  immediately  and  indepen- 
dently to  individual  men. 

The  second  thought  is  that  while  it  is  true  that 
God  could  pursue  this  method,  for  there  is  no 
a  priori  impossibility  in  the  way,  yet  we  affirm 
that  God  can  use  men  as  trustworthy  messengers 
of  His  truth.  It  is  no  accident  that  Augustinian 
thinkers  have  been  foremost  in  defending  the 
evangelical  doctrine  of  Inspiration.  That  doctrine 
has  for  its  postulate  that  God  is  able  to  direct  and 
employ  free  men  wholly  as  He  will.     A  Pelagian 


270  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

bars  himself  against  belief  in  Inspiration,  and  an 
Arminian  can  hardly  hold  to  it  in  its  full  integrity 
without  relaxing  his  hold  upon  some  of  his  views 
concerning  human  freedom.  The  doctrine  of  the 
Reformed  Faith  is  that  God  has  such  free  access 
to  and  such  entire  control  over  the  spirits  of  men 
that  He  can  use  them,  while  suppressing  none  of 
their  psychological  idiosyncrasies  and  doing  vio- 
lence to  none  of  their  personal  and  local  and  tem- 
poral conditions,  as  the  trustworthy  and  unerring 
witnesses  of  His  truth  to  their  fellow-men.  It  is 
believed  that  there  is  no  other  means  or  medium 
so  suitable  or  so  successful.  God's  message  is 
not  a  mathematical  proposition,  else  it  might  have 
been  dropped  in  cold  type  like  hailstones  from  the 
sky.  It  is  not  non-vital  speculative  truth  only, 
else  some  speechless  oracle  or  mysterious  augury 
might  have  strangely  intimated  its  secret  to  man- 
kind. It  is  warm,  living,  life-giving  truth,  appeal- 
ing to  men's  hearts,  stirring  their  very  souls,  and 
reaching  to  the  deepest  depths  of  their  spiritual 
being  ;  and  no  angel  from  heaven  could  so  convey 
it  to  men  as  could  beings  of  their  own  flesh  and 
blood,  speaking  forth  as  it  had  been  shown  them, 
passing  on  the  thrill  of  the  divine  impact  through 
the  sympathetic  medium  of  the  human  touch,  and 
carrying  into  and  along  with  the  heavenly  message 


THE  CLIMAX  OF  ALL  REVELATION        271 

all  the  contagious  enthusiasm  and  invigorating 
stimulus  of  a  divinely  moved,  divinely  led,  human 
personality. 

This,  too,  makes  the  Bible  possible.  Litem 
scripta  manct.  In  it  to-day  we  have  God's  reve- 
lation to  the  race,  given  in  former  ages.  Not  a 
mere  mechanical  deposition ;  not  a  mysterious 
piece  of  celestial  ore  fallen,  like  a  meteor,  from 
heaven  to  earth.  Like  all  things  else  in  the 
cosmos,  it  has  a  history.  God  is  its  Anctor  pri- 
maries, but  not  the  less  did  it  have  auctores  sccundi. 
Deny  this  because  of  the  mystery  that  is  in  it,  and 
you  must  deny  all  men's  doings,  for  there  is  a 
strange  concursus  of  the  divine  and  the  human 
in  all  our  work.  These  secondary  authors  were 
truly  authors.  David  is  just  as  truly  the  author 
of  the  Davidic  psalms — if  there  are  any  such  left — 
and  John  of  the  Johannine  writings  as  was  Dante 
of  the  Inferno  or  Bacon  of  the  Novum  Orgamim. 
The  doctrine  of  Inspiration  is  absolutely  indis- 
pensable to  an  organic,  Bible-holding  Christianity, 
but  this  doctrine  is  not  made  less  indispensable  or 
less  meaningful  by  allowing,  except  in  plainly 
anomalous  instances,  fully  for  the  personal  charac- 
teristics and  psychological  freedom  of  the  speakers 
and  writers  inspired.  The  doctrine  resolves  itself 
at  last  into  the  old  question  of  the  relation  of 


272  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

human  freedom  to  the  divine  control,  and  the 
solid  position  of  the  Reformed  theology  furnishes 
ample  room  for  all  its  legitimate  implications.  So 
that  we  hold  that  the  Bible,  while  truly  in  its  way 
the  product  of  man,  is  also,  and  not  less  so,  the 
word  of  God. 

We  are  now  in  a  position  to  say  that  the  Logos, 
the  self-revealing  God,  immateriates  the  truth  in 
the  cosmos  and  inscripturates  it  in  the  Bible.  The 
second  form  of  revelation  is  a  marked  advance 
upon  the  first.  While  we  remember  that  the  im- 
manence of  God  renders  all  human  illustrations 
inadequate  and  possibly  misleading,  yet  we  cannot 
see  that  this  immanence  belies  the  best  concep- 
tions which  we  can  form  of  God's  relation  to  His 
world.  God  speaks  in  the  laws  and  forces  of 
nature,  and  He  speaks  again  in  His  inspired 
word.  It  is  simply  the  cosmic  word  and  the 
written  word.  His  works  reveal  Him,  but  His 
words  reveal  Him  more  clearly.  The  heavens 
declare  His  glory,  but  His  grace  appears  in  the 
raptures  of  a  prophet  and  the  narrative  of  an 
evangelist. 

**  The  heavens  declare  thy  glory,  Lord, 
In  every  star  thy  wisdom  shines  ; 
But,  when  our  eyes  behold  Thy  word, 
We  read  Thy  name  in  fairer  lines." 


THE  CLIMAX  OF  ALL  REVELATION        273 

A  house  is  a  revelation  of  its  architect  as  well 
as  of  the  builder.  You  know  the  worker  from  his 
work,  the  doer  by  his  deed,  the  creator  by  his 
creation.  The  human  builder  leaves  the  unmis- 
takable earmarks  of  his  individuality  upon  every 
product  of  his  toil.  We  put  ourselves  into  all  we 
do ;  we  leave  our  finger  marks  upon  all  we  under- 
take. God's  immanence  in  the  world  does  not 
negate  his  creatorship  of  the  world,  and  so  we 
may  well  say  with  a  double  emphasis  that  the 
creation  reveals  its  Creator.  The  symbol  of  this 
revelation  is  the  cosmos ;  call  it  inert  matter,  or 
omnipresent  energy,  or  machine-like  phantas- 
magoria, or  mere  illusion ;  call  it  what  you  will, 
it  still  appears  and  appeals  to  men,  and,  accord- 
ingly, it  serves  as  the  medium  by  which  its 
Author  speaks  to  men.     This  is  natural  religion. 

But,  if  the  building  speaks  for  its  builder,  how 
much  more  does  the  teaching  speak  for  the 
teacher,  the  word  for  its  author  ?  A  true  writer 
writes  himself  into  every  line.  His  heart's  blood 
flows  from  the  point  of  his  pen.  Mr.  Boyeson 
said  that  all  writing  is  auto-biographical.  Goethe 
called  his  writings  an  uninterrupted  personal  con- 
fession. The  character,  the  genius,  the  soul  of  a 
writer  tints  or  taints  every  output  of  his  brain. 
If  the  cosmos  is  what  God  has  made,  the  Scrip- 
is 


274  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

ture  is  what  He  has  said.  If  St.  Peter's  bespeaks 
the  genius  of  an  Angelo,  shall  we  not  say  that  a 
Hamlet  far  more  clearly  bespeaks  the  genius  of  a 
Shakespeare  ?  The  one  is  a  poem  in  marble  and 
the  other  is  a  poem  in  speech.  The  cosmos 
appeals  directly  to  the  senses,  and,  through  the 
senses,  speaks  to  the  soul ;  the  Scripture  speaks 
less  distinctly  to  the  senses  and  more  directly  to 
the  soul,  with  its  sacred  messages  from  above. 

But,  with  all  this,  God's  revelation  is  not  com- 
plete. He  can  come  nearer  to  men  than  in  the 
starry  heavens  or  in  the  printed  parchment.  Man 
is  earthy  of  the  earth;  but  he  is  also  heavenly  of 
the  heavens.  He  is  both  cosmical  and  super- 
cosmical.  He  is  the  link  that  binds  two  worlds 
into  one.  His  divine  kinship  is  the  open  door  for 
a  more  direct  communication  between  God  and 
himself.  If  God  and  man  were  wholly  unlike, 
they  would  be  forever  insulated  from  each  other ; 
but  since  they  are  essentially  akin,  the  assured 
presumption  is  that  when  God  has  sacred  and 
vital  messages  to  give  to  men  He  will  come  yet 
nearer  to  them  than  by  the  symbol  of  His  crea- 
tive work  or  through  the  medium  of  His  written 
word.  Proud  philosophers  have  disdained  anthro- 
pomorphic conceptions  of  God,  vainly  forgetting 
that  any  other  kind  of  a  conception  of  Him  is 


THE  CLIMAX  OF  ALL  REVELATION        275 

absolutely  impossible  to  the  minds  of  men.  Mr. 
John  Fiske  has  pleaded  for  the  de-anthropomor- 
phization  of  theism ;  but  he  might  as  well  have 
asked  that  human  thought  shall  commit  suicide 
and  then  officiate  at  its  own  funeral  obsequies. 
On  the  other  hand,  we  thank  God  for  the  great 
and  everlasting  truth  of  which  anthropomorphism 
is  the  cumbersome  and  inadequate  designation.  If 
anthropomorphism  were  false,  the  divine  Incarna- 
tion had  been  forever  impossible.  We  are  not 
unmindful  of  the  degradations  and  perversions 
that  have  been  christened  under  this  name,  but  an 
abused  truth,  stripped  of  its  abuse,  is  none  the 
less  a  truth  still ;  and  it  is  because  of  the  kinship 
between  God  and  man  that  we  can  know  God  at 
all,  and  it  is  because  of  that  same  kinship  that  God 
could  descend  to  our  low  level  and  become  as 
one  of  the  children  of  men.  If  we  anthropo- 
morphize God  in  intcllcctu,  God  has  marvel- 
ously  anthropomorphized  Himself  in  facto.  The 
Incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God  is  nothing  else 
than  a  historical,  substantial,  divine  self-anthro- 
pomorphization.  And  the  very  possibility  of 
such  a  self-identification  of  God  with  the  organic 
body  of  mankind  was,  with  infinite  love,  the 
assurance  that  it  should  be.  The  love  which 
actuated   the    revelation    of  grace,  whose   whole 


276  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

meaning  is  redemption,  would  not  stop  this  side 
of  the  farthest  limits  of  its  own  condescension  so 
long  as  it  does  no  violence  to  the  divine  nature 
and  does  not  crush  out  the  free  autonomy  of  the 
human. 

Thus  we  believe  that,  seen  both  from  the  meta- 
physical and  from  the  soteriological  point  of  view, 
there  is  a  tremendous  presumption  in  favor  of  the 
Incarnation  of  the  revealing  Logos.  For  cer- 
tainly in  this  way  only  could  the  message  of 
redemption  be  best  conveyed.  The  cosmic  word 
has  lost  the  clearness  of  its  meaning ;  the  written 
word,  in  form,  is  but  an  ink-and-paper  symbol. 
The  Living  Word  only  could  speak  the  word  of 
life  in  accents  which  would  charm  a  dead  world 
into  life  again.  The  cosmos  is  personal,  the  phi- 
losophers tell  us,  but  the  person  is  something 
other  than  the  manifesting  symbol ;  the  Scripture, 
too,  in  a  more  indirect  sense,  is  personal  also,  and 
yet  we  are  not  Lutherans  to  declare  that  the 
written  word  itself  is  invested  with  a  supernatural 
life-giving  power.  These  symbols  are  too  slug- 
gish, too  reluctant,  too  unresponsive.  If  God 
would  speak  most  effectually  to  men,  He  must 
speak  as  soul  to  soul.  The  immateriation  of  the 
Logos  in  creation  is  ineffective  as  a  Salvator 
Hominum ;    the  inscripturation   of  the    Logos  is 


THE  CLIMAX  OF  ALL  REVELATION        277 

also  incomplete,  except  as  it  is  pervaded  and  ap- 
plied by  the  Divine  Efficiency  for  which,  after  all, 
it  only  speaks.  With  an  infinite  God,  whose  ways 
are  unsearchable  and  whose  judgments  are  past 
finding  out,  whose  name  is  Emmanuel,  and  who 
Himself  is  Love,  the  incomplete  in  His  plan  is  a 
prophecy  of  its  accomplishment  and  the  inade- 
quate in  the  development  of  His  purpose  is  the 
assurance  that,  in  His  own  time  and  in  His  own 
way,  the  consummation  will  be  complete.  Kal  b 
hoy-OS  adpz  lykvtxo  xai  iaxrjvaxrsv  iv  <7}/itv. 

The  Incarnation  is  the  logical  and  fitting  culmi- 
nation of  the  gracious  revelation.  The  content 
of  that  revelation  is  not  simply  a  body  of  truth 
for  the  philosopher ;  it  is  a  message  of  life  to  the 
dead,  of  light  to  the  blind,  of  redemption  to  the 
lost.  It  is  not  only  divine  truth  striving  to  make 
itself  known  to  the  world ;  it  is  not  only  divine 
wisdom  aiming  to  give  guidance  to  a  foolish  and 
vagrant  race ;  it  is  most  of  all  and  first  of  all 
divine  love  striving  to  make  itself  felt  and  known 
and  operative  in  the  lives  of  helpless,  hopeless, 
sinful  men.  If  it  be  true  that  cosmical  revelation 
is  incomplete  in  a  sinful  world,  is  it  not  also  true 
that  a  merely  written  revelation — as  such,  indeed, 
being  only  a  part  of  the  cosmical — is  insufficient 
for  the  work  of  savin"-  a  world  that  is  lost  to  God? 


278  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

We  insist,  therefore,  that  with  God  as  is  God  and 
with  man  his  creature,  made  in  His  image  and 
lost  in  sin,  the  impulsions  of  His  holy  being  could 
find  their  complete  expression  nowhere  this  side 
of  the  free  and  voluntary  Incarnation  of  His  only- 
begotten  and  well-beloved  Son.  There  is  a  low 
empirical  level  from  which  miracles  are  improba- 
ble ;  but  there  is  a  higher  platform  from  which, 
when  it  is  seen  that  man  is  in  helpless  need  and 
that  God  is  infinite  in  love,  a  supernatural  move- 
ment toward  redemption,  emanating  from  God 
and  aiming  at  men,  carrying  the  little  miracle — 
miracuhim — on  the  surface  of  which  it  is  but  an 
integral  and  temporary  part,  is  the  most  probable 
of  all  things  which  we  can  conceive  as  originating 
in  divine  thought  and  performed  by  divine  power. 
The  same  remark  is  preeminently  true  of  the  In- 
carnation. To  lower  visions  it  is  incredible ;  to 
sights  of  sense  it  is  impossible.  But  once  get  the 
right  conception  of  God  and  the  world  and  of  sin 
and  of  the  exigencies  of  the  human  race,  and  the 
predictions  of  short-sighted  empiricism  are  re- 
versed, and  we  wait,  as  the  world  for  weary  ages 
waited,  as  by  the  unerring  instinct  of  the  soul,  for 
the  coming  of  the  Son  of  God.  But  the  possi- 
bility of  this  is  in  the  kinship  between  God  and 
man.     If  God  be  essentially  super-personal,  or  if 


THE  CLIMAX  OF  ALL  REVELATION        279 

man  be  essentially  infra-personal,  then  the  meta- 
physical veto  upon  the  Incarnation  is  final  and 
beyond  appeal.  If  rationality  in  God  is  intrinsic- 
ally different  from  rationality  in  man,  if  divine 
ethics,  divine  thought,  divine  love,  are  generically 
unlike  the  human,  then  belief  in  the  humanization 
of  the  Logos  is  philosophically  forbidden.  This 
is  why  the  question  of  the  personality  of  God  and 
man  is  of  such  crucial  importance.  This  is  not  to 
say  that  the  difference  between  the  divine  and  the 
human  is  only  one  of  degree;  it  is  to  say  that  the 
fundamental  canons  and  conditions  of  rationality 
and  morality,  of  truth  and  righteousness,  are  ab- 
solutely identical  in  heaven,  on  earth,  and  in  hell; 
among  gods,  angels,  men,  and  devils. 

Thus  it  is  that  Christianity  culminates  in  its 
Christ.  The  revelation  of  God  is  not  complete 
until  He  could  speak  forth  in  human  voice  and 
say,  not  "  This  is  the  truth,"  while  pointing  to 
either  star  or  book,  but  "/  am  the  Truth." 

It  is  an  interesting  question  which  has  more 
often  been  answered  unsatisfactorily  than  other- 
wise :  What  is  the  exact  relation  which  the  Truth 
Incarnate  in  the  historical  Christ  sustains  to  the 
truth  immateriate  in  the  cosmos  and,  especially, 
to  the  truth  inscripturate  in  the  Scripture  ?  We 
believe  that  here  is  an  opportunity  for  the  theo- 


23o  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

logical  student  to  work  a  field  that  has  not  been 
overworked,  and  that  promises  large  returns. 
Certainly,  we  cannot  say  that  the  Living  Word 
sustains  the  same  relation  to  the  cosmos  as  to  the 
Scripture,  nor  that  He  sustains  the  same  relation 
to  the  written  word  that  this  written  word  sus- 
tains to  the  cosmic  word.  We  know  that  the 
sanction  of  Christ  rests  upon  the  written  word, 
and  that  that  gives  it  permanent  value  and  valid- 
ity for  all  time.  Indeed,  it  is  by  means  of  the 
written  word  that  we  have  objective  means  x>f 
knowing  the  Living  Word.  Principal  Fairbairn, 
in  discussing  religious  knowledge,  insists  that 
"  our  formal  source  is  the  consciousness  of 
Christ " ;  but  he  adds  :  "  In  order  to  it,  the  Scrip- 
tures are  necessary,  but  as  a  medium  or  channel 
which  conducts  to  the  source,  not  as  the  source 
itself.  They  testify  of  Christ  as  His  witnesses." l 
This  is  unquestionably  true,  and  every  Church 
assents  to  it  which  makes  the  test  of  Christian 
discipleship  and  of  church  membership  personal 
trust  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  not  merely  an 
intellectual  assent  to  a  body  of  truth.  Our  Lord 
Himself  sanctioned  this  view  when  He  said  that 
the  Scriptures    "  are  they  which  testify  of  me." 2 

1  Place  of  Christ  in  Modern  Theology,  p.  450. 
1  John  7  :  39. 


THE  CLIMAX  OF  ALL  REVELATION        281 

It  is  exceedingly  important  to  bear  in  mind  Dr. 
Fairbairn's  caution  that  Scripture  is  necessary  in 
reaching  the  consciousness  of  Christ ;  for,  waiving 
this,  we  are  left  to  the  wayward  whims  of  our 
own  subjective  confusion  and  folly.  Scripture  not 
only  speaks  of  Christ;  it  speaks  for  Him.  We 
go  to  the  written  word  to  hear  the  spoken  utter- 
ances of  the  Living  Word.  He  has  left  the  world 
behind  in  order  to  complete  His  mediatorial  mis- 
sion, and  to  carry  forward  to  consummation  His 
priestly  function  in  the  heavens ;  and  though  He 
has  sent  His  blessed  Spirit,  in  gracious  activity,  as 
the  dynamic  of  redemption,  yet  the  illumination 
and  promised  guidance  of  that  Spirit  are  confined 
to  the  tract  of  truth  which  has  been  opened  up  in 
the  written  word.  If  theology  is  a  growing 
science,  it  is  because  the  grasp  and  faith  of  the 
theologian  grow.  The  content  of  special  revela- 
tion is  complete  in  the  inspired  Book  which  God 
has  given  us,  and  if  there  is  new  light  to  break,  it 
will  be  from  that  Word  that  it  will  break  ;  and  the 
new  light  will  only  serve  more  clearly  to  elucidate 
and  more  accurately  to  interpret  the  truth  which 
has  already  been  placed  objectively  in  our  hands. 
Only  thus  are  we  to  grow  in  grace  and  in  knowl- 
edge; only  in  this  sense  is  spiritual  illumination, 
revelation ;    only  thus  is  the  objective  revelation 


282  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

taken  by  the  teaching  Spirit  who  is  the  successor 
and  executor  of  the  locally  and  thus  personally 
departed  theanthropic  Christ,  and  made  a  veritable 
revelation  to  us. 

There  is  no  time  or  place  now  to  speak  of  the 
culminating  peak  in  this  elevated  table-land  of  di- 
vine revelation.  Personality  is  the  highest  cate- 
gory of  our  thinking,  and  Christ,  the  personal 
Logos,  becoming  a  living  man,  has  touched  the 
limit  of  conceivable  possibility.  Not  an  orderly 
world,  not  an  inspired  book,  but  a  man,  born  as 
men  are  born,  living  as  men  live,  suffering  as  men 
suffer,  tempted  as  men  are  tempted,  struggling  as 
men  struggle,  dying  as  men  die, — this  is  the  very 
climax  of  the  revealing  process.  Further  than 
this  God  cannot  go ;  nearer  to  us  than  this  He 
cannot  come ;  lower  than  this  He  can  never  con- 
descend. The  ages  of  preparation  travail  till  the 
fullness  of  time  is  come.  The  shining  skies  bend 
and  resound  with  the  angelic  chorus  when  the 
Bethlehem  Babe  is  born  ;  and  the  whole  cosmos 
is  in  sympathetic  throes  while  the  earth  quakes 
and  darkness  shades  the  awful  scene  when  the 
Incarnate  Logos,  amid  the  jeers  and  sneers 
of  an  insulting  throng,  in  the  indescribable  an- 
guish whose  keenest  pang  was  the  cold  ingrati- 
tude  of   those   whom    He    came   to   save,  "  be- 


THE  CLIMAX  OF  ALL  REVELATION        283 

came  obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of 
the  cross." 

The  Incarnation  has  its  justification,  its  explana- 
tion, and  its  illumination,  in  the  Atonement  which 
He  accomplished  for  the  sin  of  the  world.  The 
deepest  and  tenderest  note  in  all  God's  revealings 
to  man  is  sounded  in  that  "  It  is  unfinished  "  of 
Calvary ;  the  clearest  glimpse  we  catch  of  God 
Himself,  in  His  goodness  and  His  glory,  is  the 
vision  of  His  only-begotten  Son  on  the  cross. 

Concerning  the  question  whether  the  Incarna- 
tion would  have  ever  been  historically  realized  if 
sin  had  not  come  into  the  world,  we  are  persuaded 
that  it  is  idle  to  speculate.  We  regard  the  ques- 
tion as  one  of  curious  rather  than  of  practical 
interest.  Our  view  has  contemplated  special 
revelation  as  soteriologically  motived  and  condi- 
tioned. It  goes  without  saying  that  if  a  sound 
and  rational  metaphysics  declares  this  absolutely 
impossible,  then  we  are  completely  and  disas- 
trously routed  at  once  and  for  all.  But,  quite  to 
the  contrary,  many  tell  us  that  philosophy  fur- 
nishes the  favoring  presumption,  and  it  is  not  easy 
to  see  why  theology  should  make  haste  to  de- 
cline the  courtesy.  We  confess  that  we  have 
never  been  able  to  see  why  the  doctrine  of  the 
voluntariness    of  the    Incarnation    is    not  just  as 


284  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

valid  and  complete  coupled  with  the  doctrine  of 
the  metaphysical  necessity  as  opposed  to  it.  To 
be  sure,  if  the  motive  is  merely  and  exclusively 
necessitarian,  then  Christianity  is  eviscerated  of 
its  redemptive  signification,  and  the  Love  of  God 
is  reduced  to  the  low  grind  of  impassive  fate. 
If  the  Incarnation  is  to  be  accepted  as  the  neces- 
sary ontological  unfolding  of  the  Logos  in  time, 
like  the  necessary  generation  in  eternity  of  the 
Son  by  the  Father,  then  theology  has  abandoned 
its  rights  in  favor  of  philosophy,  and  John  3  :  16 
is  stripped  of  all  its  great  and  precious  meanings. 
But,  even  granting  the  necessity  of  such  an 
incarnation  in  a  sinless  world — though  no  man 
can  dogmatically  affirm  it  or  deny  it — the  conclu- 
sion might  not  be  apropos  in  a  world  blighted  by 
sin.  Here  its  motive  and  meaning  are  wholly 
different.  It  is  quite  true  that  there  are  passages 
in  the  Scriptures  which  seem  to  make  redemption 
incidental  to  the  grand  purpose  of  the  Incarna- 
tion ;  but  certainly  both  the  spirit  and  the  letter 
of  the  written  word  put  the  soteriological  motive 
in  the  foreground  both  for  human  thought  and 
human  faith.  But  the  one  does  not  at  all  nega- 
tive the  other.  As  Dr.  Purves  says,  in  discussing 
the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians :  "  His  life  and  work 
on   earth   appeared  as   the   climax   not  only  of 


THE  CLIMAX  OF  ALL  REVELATION        285 

Hebrew  history  but  of  the  whole  cosmic  process 
of  the  self-revelation  of  God.  In  the  light  of 
this  vast  vision  of  revealed  Deity  and  of  its  entire 
relation  to  the  entire  universe,  faith  in  Christ 
appeared  more  than  ever  the  condition  of  salva- 
tion and  Christianity  itself  the  only  true  re- 
ligion."1 

Unless  metaphysical  necessity  must  exclude  en- 
tire voluntariness,  and  we  cannot  consent  that  it 
does,  we  fail  to  see  that  it  makes  the  seeking  and 
the  saving  of  the  lost  one  whit  less  credible  or 
less  effective.  Necessity  in  one  sphere  does  not 
kill  freedom  in  another.  Shall  we  say  that  be- 
cause the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son  is  neces- 
sary, therefore  it  is  not  voluntary  ?  Because  it  is 
necessary  that  I  should  do  something,  can  I, 
therefore,  not  freely  choose  to  do  that  thing? 
The  physician  informs  the  aged  saint  that  he  must 
very  soon  die,  and  the  saint's  face  beams  with  joy 
as  he  welcomes  the  verdict  of  the  inevitable.  We 
are  immortal.  "  To  be  or  not  to  be,"  is  not  the 
question  ;  we  are.  Suicide  does  not  end  exist- 
ence. Self-annihilation  is  utterly  impossible.  We 
cannot  help  ourselves ;  we  must  be.  Shall  we 
conclude,  therefore,  that  none  of  us  can  freely 
choose  to  continue  to  be  ?     Can  a  man  not  freely 

x  Christianity  in  the  Apostolic  Age,  p.  245. 


286  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

choose  that  which,  in  the  absence  of  his  choice, 
would  be  absolutely  and  metaphysically  necessary  ? 
What  we  take  care  to  deny  is  that  the  Son  of 
God  became  human  merely  because  He  was  forced 
by  some  compelling  necessity  to  do  so.  What- 
ever speculative  metaphysics  may  say  about  that, 
its  deliverance  must  not  touch  or  modify  His  free 
volition  in  becoming  flesh,  in  order  to  save  sinful 
men.  "  This  is  a  faithful  saying,  and  worthy  of  all 
acceptation,  that  Christ  Jesus  came  into  the  world 
to  save  sinners."  The  incarnation  of  philosophy 
may  be  or  may  not  be  necessary.  The  Incarna- 
tion of  Christian  theology  is  primarily  voluntary 
and  soteriological.  In  any  case,  there  is  no  con- 
tradiction between  them.  To  reduce  it  to  only  a 
necessary  climactic  stage  in  a  process  of  cosmic 
self-revelation  of  God  is  to  libel  the  grace  of  God 
and  to  disappoint  a  waiting,  sinful  world.  We 
shall  certainly  be  safe  in  refusing,  with  Dr.  War- 
field,  "  to  seek  the  proximate  account  of  the  Incar- 
nation either  ontologically  or  ethically  in  God,  or 
in  the  nature  of  the  Logos  as  Revealer,  or  in  the 
idea  of  creation,  or  yet  in  the  character  of  the 
created  product,  and  especially  man,  as  made  ca- 
pable of  receiving  God,  and  therefore  not  finding 
his  true  end  until  he  is  raised  to  union  with  Him ; 
and  affirming  that  it  is  to  be  found  only  in  the 


THE  CLIMAX  OF  ALL  REVELATION       287 

needy  condition  of  man  as  a  sinner  before  the  face 
of  a  holy  and  loving  God."  l 

This  is  the  view  which  we  prefer  to  adopt  and 
emphasize,  and  it  has  the  support  of  special  revela- 
tion ;  it  has  the  presumption  of  cosmical  thought ; 
it  has  the  sanctions  of  sound  reason.  The  re- 
demptive motive  argues  no  after-thought  in  the 
plan  of  God.  Generic  Calvinism  knows  no  such 
abhorrent  conception.  It  holds  that  God  never 
decreed  that  the  world  should  run  its  course  free 
from  sin.  Professor  Orr,  with  almost  excessive 
caution,  guardedly  says :  "  An  ultra-Calvinist 
would  speak  of  the  foreordination  of  sin ;  I  take 
lower  ground  and  speak  only  of  the  foresight  and 
permission  of  sin.  Dealing  with  the  question  on 
the  largest  scale,  I  do  not  see  how  either  Calvin- 
ist  or  Arminian  can  get  away  from  this.  It  is  not 
a  question  how  sin  historically  or  empirically 
eventuated — that  we  agree  it  must  have  done 
through  human  freedom — but  it  is  the  question 
of  fact,  that  sin  is  here,  and  that  in  the  divine  plan 
it  has  been  permitted  to  exist — that  it  has  been 
taken  up  by  God  into  the  plan  of  the  world.  His 
plan  included  the  permission  of  sin  and  the  treat- 
ment of  it  by  Redemption."2     On  grounds  of  the- 

1  In  The  Bible  Student,  Dec,  1900,  p.  318. 

2  The  Christian  View  of  God  and  the  World,  p.  323. 


288  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

odicy,  we  fail  to  see  wherein  the  "  ultra-Calvinist " 
has  much  the  disadvantage  or  wherein,  if  God  be  in- 
finitely powerful  and  holy,  "  foresight  "  exonerates 
God  from  much  which  foreordination  involves. 
The  cosmical  programme,  as  divinely  purposed, 
embraced  Adam's  fall  and  race  redemption.  In 
the  same  article  in  The  Bible  Student,  from  which 
we  have  just  quoted,  Dr.  Warfield  says,  with  great 
clearness,  "  The  fall,  though  as  an  event  in  time 
it  was  contingent,  that  is,  dependent  on  the  action 
of  the  human  will,  was  no  more  uncertain  of  occur- 
rence than  the  Incarnation  itself,  which  was  an 
event  in  time  and  contingent  on  the  other  events 
with  which  it  was  connected." 

It  is  only  thus  that  we  rightly  conceive  of  the 
Incarnate  Christ  in  His  cosmical  conditions  and 
relations.  The  eternal  plan  of  God  contemplated 
a  ruined  and  reconstructed  world.  The  Lamb  is 
"  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world  " ;  and 
Professor  Orr  can  say  almost  in  the  words  of 
Jonathan  Edwards,  "  Even  creation  itself  is  built 
on  Redemption  lines."  l  Christ  is  the  Alpha  and 
Omega,  the  Origin  and  the  Goal,  the  First  and 
the  Last.  All  things  were  created  by  Him  and 
for  Him  and  unto  Him.  He  is  not  only  the 
Head  of  the  Church  ;  He  is  also  the  crown  of  the 
1   The  Christian  View  of  Cod  and  (he  World,  p.  323. 


THE  CLIMAX  OF  ALL  REVELATION       289 

world.  Sin  is  an  incident  in  the  vast  sweep  of 
the  ages,  but  that  incident  is  the  occasion  of  the 
saving  mission  of  the  Son  of  God.  Again  we 
quote  from  Professor  Orr,  who  is  so  thoroughly 
sane  and  satisfactory  in  his  discussion  of  this  pro- 
found subject :  "  The  Incarnation  has,  indeed,  im- 
mediate reference  to  Redemption ;  but  it  has  at 
the  same  time  a  wider  scope.  It  aims  at  carrying 
through  the  plan  of  creation,  and  conducts,  not 
the  redeemed  portion  of  humanity  alone,  but  the 
universe  to  its  goal."  ' 

Thus  Ave  find  the  adequate  valuation  of  the  his- 
torical Incarnation,  not  in  speculative  philosophy, 
not  in  cosmical  research,  but  in  the  teachings  of 
the  special  revelation  of  which  it  is  itself  a  central 
factor  and  the  crowning  part.  We  find  it  deeply 
rooted  in  the  plan  of  the  world's  career,  amply 
occasioned  by  the  world's  fall  into  sin,  and  organic- 
ally involved  in  the  ultimate  goal  of  all  cosmical 
and  human  developments. 

However,  our  study  of  this  cosmical  palingene- 
sis is  by  no  means  completed  till  we  have  con- 
sidered whether  the  contemplated  restoration  is, 
or  is  to  be,  actually  accomplished.  If  the  whole 
world  is  lost  and  if  the  Son  of  man  is  come  to 
seek  and  to  save  the  lost,  then  is  the  whole  world 

*  Ibid.,  p.  327. 
19 


290  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

to  be  saved?  Is  universal  redemption  the  con- 
clusion from  the  premise  that  the  cure  is  as  exten- 
sive and  as  radical  as  the  malady  ?  This  argues 
the  ultimate  abolition  of  all  evil  and  the  utter 
banishment  of  sin.  And  the  student  of  theodicy- 
must  not  shirk  the  task,  however  he  may  wish  to 
do  so,  of  essaying  to  square  this  optimistic  in- 
ference with  the  evangelical  doctrine  of  the  eternal 
persistence  of  sin  and  the  orthodox  tenet  of  an 
everlasting  hell. 

Concerning  this  hard  question,  two  or  three 
brief  remarks  may  be  allowed  in  default  of  time 
for  fuller  consideration. 

First,  it  is  true  that  as  in  Adam  the  race  fell,  so 
in  Christ  the  race  is  redeemed  to  God.  We  do 
not  mean  to  insist,  with  Dr.  David  Somerville,1 
that  the  classical  passage  in  the  fifth  of  Romans 
is  to  be  taken  as  teaching  that  in  Adam  the  race 
actually  fell  and  in  Christ  the  race  is  "  ideally  " 
saved,  pending  the  necessary  condition  of  personal 
faith  ;  for  while  there  is  a  truth  in  this  view,  it 
seems  to  do  violence  to  the  parallelism  and  bal- 
ance of  the  passage.  It  is  undoubtedly  true  that 
the  two  alls  in  I  Corinthians  15  :  22,  have  a 
different  reference  of  comprehension ;  that  is  to 
say,  the  "  all "  who  died  in  Adam  outnumber,  in 

1  St.  Pauls  Conception  of  Christ,  third  lecture,  p.  87. 


THE  CLIMAX  OF  ALL  REVELATION        291 

individual  count,  the  "  all "  who  are  made  alive  in 
Christ.  What  we  insist  upon  is  that  the  constit- 
uency of  both  the  first  and  the  second  Adam  is 
the  human  race.  The  race  sinned  and  the  race  is 
to  be  saved.  Those  that  fail  of  salvation  are  to 
be  regarded  as  individualistic  exceptions.  The 
aim  of  special  revelation  is  a  regenerated  human- 
ity. God  deals  with  the  race ;  He  deals  with  in- 
dividuals only  as  organic  parts  of  the  race.  A 
man  is  not  properly  an  isolated  atom,  he  is  a  part 
of  a  whole.  Dr.  Abraham  Kuyper's  words  here 
are  clear,  and  they  express  the  Reformed  Theol- 
ogy on  the  subject :  "  Christ  saves  humanity.  He 
redeems  oar  race,  and  if  all  of  our  race  are  not 
saved,  it  is  because  they  who  are  lost  are  cut  off 
from  the  tree  of  humanity.  There  is  no  organism 
in  hell,  but  an  aggregate.  In  the  realm  of  glory, 
on  the  other  hand,  there  is  no  aggregate,  but 
the  'body  of  Christ,'  and  hence  an  organic 
whole.  This  organic  whole  is  no  new  '  body,'  but 
the  original  organism  of  humanity,  as  it  was 
created  under  Adam  as  its  central  unity."1 

Secondly.     It  follows  from  this  that  the  saved 
are  to  the   lost  as  an  innumerable  multitude  to 
a  few.      The  "aggregate"  of  the   lost   is   com- 
posed of  the  exceptions  ;  the  rotten  fruit  that  is 
1  Encyclopedia  of  Sacred  Theology,  p.  298.     Italics  his. 


292  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

cut  off  from  the  tree  is  a  small  part  compared 
with  the  good  fruit  which  is  gathered  and  gar- 
nered. It  is  practically  the  universal  and  unchal- 
lenged faith  of  the  Reformed  Church  that  all 
infants  dying  in  infancy  are  regenerated  and  saved. 
When  we  remember  the  scriptural  teachings  that 
few  stripes  will  be  allotted  to  those  who  have  not 
known  their  Master's  will,  and  that  from  those  to 
whom  little  has  been  given  little  will  be  required, 
it  must  be  said  that  the  doctrine  of  the  eschato- 
logical  future  of  mankind  is  not  so  pessimistic  as  it 
is  sometimes  represented  to  be ;  and  that  the  racial 
blessings  which  spring  from  the  redemption  which 
is  in  Jesus  Christ,  embracing  the  restraining  and 
ameliorating  influences  of  common  grace  upon 
those  who  are  not  of  the  number  of  the  elect  of 
God,  are  such  as  to  justify  the  humiliating  Incar- 
nation of  the  Son  of  God  and  to  crown  His  suffer- 
ings in  behalf  of  mankind  with  an  immeasurable 
victory.  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  will  certainly  not  be 
regarded  as  a  rash  representative  of  the  Reformed 
Faith,  and  these  are  his  words  :  "  We  have  reason 
to  believe  that  the  number  of  the  finally  lost  in 
comparison  with  the  whole  number  of  the  saved 
will  be  very  inconsiderable.  Our  blessed  Lord, 
when  surrounded  by  the  innumerable  company 
of  the  redeemed  will  be  hailed  as  the  'Salvator 


THE  CLIMAX  OF  ALL  REVELATION        293 

Hominum,'  the  Saviour  of  Men,  as  the  Lamb 
that  bore  the  sins  of  the  world."  l 

But,  thirdly,  while  all  this  may  relieve  the  diffi- 
culty, it  does  not  solve  the  mystery  of  the  prob- 
lem. It  is  only  the  old  problem  of  sin,  slightly 
modified.  The  primary  difficulty  is  not  that  there 
is  a  hell,  but  that  there  is  sin.  When  the  door  of 
God's  world  went  ajar  enough  to  let  sin  in,  no 
darker  and  more  diabolical  intruder  could  follow 
in  its  train.  The  ideal  was  broken  when  the  first 
impulse  to  sin  invaded.  The  mystery  of  hell  is 
but  the  inevitable  corollary  from  the  mystery  of 
sin  ;  it  is  but  the  same  mystery  throughout. 

That  hell  should  be  eternal  does  not  increase  the 
mystery  one  whit ;  for  even  an  eternity,  as  we  con- 
ceive it,  must  beat  its  endless  journey  step  by  step, 
moment  by  moment.  The  essential  mystery  is  not 
a  matter  of  duration,  but  a  matter  of  moral  princi- 
ple. It  is  no  greater  mystery  that  sin  should  be  in 
God's  world  a  thousand  years  from  now  or  a  mil- 
lion years  from  now,  than  that  it  should  be  here 
now.  That  it  is  here  at  all  is  the  essence  of  the 
problem.  The  initial  sin  unlocked  the  door  for  a 
possibly  everlasting  doom.  The  will  that  chose  the 
wrong  has  the  capacity  to  choose  the  wrong  for- 
ever ;  and,  unaided  or  aided,  it  alone  has  the  capac- 

1  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  iii.,  pp.  879,  880. 


294  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

ity  to  choose  to  be  righted  again.  Dogmatic  uni- 
versal redemption  is  implicit  fatalism  :  at  least,  no 
"  freedomist "  can  espouse  universalism  in  redemp- 
tion, for  the  whole  platform  on  which  he  affects  to 
stand  is  that  future  human  volitions  cannot  be  fore- 
cast or  foretold.  But,  remembering  the  ethical  ele- 
ments involved  in  personal  salvation,  it  must  appear 
that  predictable  universal  salvation  implies  that 
every  individual  human  being  will,  sometime,  cer- 
tainly choose  to  submit  to  God.  Any  doctrine  of 
election  has  its  difficulties  ;  for  election  means  par- 
tialism,  as  against  universalism.  We  may  hold, 
with  Schleiermacher,  that  all  are  elect,  or  we  may 
hold,  with  the  universal  pessimist,  that  all  are  non- 
elect  ;  morally,  they  are  as  far  apart  as  heaven  from 
hell ;  but,  logically,  they  are  equally  easy  of  accept- 
ance. But  the  facts  of  life  and  the  teachings  of 
Scripture  squarely  disprove  both ;  and  when  we 
enter  into  the  region  of  partialism  the  difficulties 
begin.  We  remember  that  not  pain  but  sin,  not 
suffering  but  guilt,  not  future  punishment  but  pres- 
ent, and  therefore  possibly  ever-present,  wrong,  is 
the  core  of  the  mystery  with  which  we  have  to 
deal. 

Calvinism  traces  the  mystery  back  to  the  mind 
of  God,  whose  "judgments  are  unsearchable,  and 
whose  ways  are  past  finding  out."    It  finds  the  last 


THE  CLIMAX  OF  ALL  REVELATION        295 

term  not  in  blind  selection,  but  in  personal  elec- 
tion ;  and,  with  Personality  as  the  highest  note  of 
a  sound  philosophy,  it  insists  that  it  has  not  only 
scriptural  sanctions,  but  also  those  of  a  true  phi- 
losophy. It  humbly  carries  its  fundamental  prin- 
ciple of  divine,  sovereign  control  on  to  its  eternal 
issues.  It  believes  that  the  same  God  who  rules 
men  in  this  world  rules  men  in  all  worlds ;  that 
the  same  hand  that  disposes  temporal  favors  and 
earthly  lots  among  free  men  has  its  determining 
part  in  the  immortal  developments  of  free  men  in 
conditions  different  from  those  of  time.  Dr.  Kuy- 
per  has  said  that  all  Christians  hold  election  in 
honor  in  creation  and  in  providence,  but  that 
"  Calvinism  deviates  from  the  other  Christian  con- 
fessions in  this  respect  only :  that,  grasping  unity 
and  placing  the  glory  of  God  above  all  things,  it 
dares  to  extend  the  mystery  of  election  to  spiritual 
life  and  to  the  hope  of  the  life  to  come." l 

The  limits  set  upon  our  task  are  already  over- 
passed; and  yet  how  deeply  we  realize  that  it 
has  been  very  imperfectly  accomplished !  The 
magnitude  of  our  theme  would  have  long  since 
disheartened  us  utterly  had  it  not  been  that  it 
is  so  vitally  implicated  in  all  intelligent  reflec- 
tive Christian  faith.     The  best  preacher  preaches 

1  Calvinism,  p.  272. 


296  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

many  a  sermon  for  his  own  good,  confidently 
trusting  that  what  he  needs  himself  will  bring 
help  in  the  case  of  others.  We  pity  the  man  who 
has  never  doubted,  for  he  who  has  not  doubted 
has  only  half  learned  to  believe.  We  have  shrunk 
from  the  myriad-sided  largeness  of  the  question  we 
have  tackled,  and  we  have  often  heard  the  mental 
censor  adjuring  us  that  our  overweening  ambition 
must  be  the  measure  of  our  inevitable  failure. 

Nevertheless,  questions  keep  on  asking  them- 
selves, and  we  dare  to  presume  to  offer  our  con- 
tribution as  a  modest  study  of  one  of  the  deepest 
problems  of  human  thought.  We  should  meet 
with  suspicion  the  brazen  face  of  the  man  whose 
voice  proclaims  that  he  has  either  formed  or  found 
an  easy  and  all-sufficient  answer.  It  is  as  neces- 
sary an  achievement  to  know  the  bounds  of  our 
knowledge  as  to  traverse  the  tracts  between  them. 
A  few  years  ago,  Gail  Hamilton,  in  the  North 
American  Review,  cautioned  her  readers  against 
attempting  to  "poss  the  impossible  and  scrute 
the  inscrutable."  Pascal  held  that  truth  on  this 
side  the  Pyrenees  is  error  on  that.  We  believe 
there  is  a  mystic,  though  distantly  unattainable, 
mountain  height  where  all  contradictions  fade  into 
unity  and  all  the  jarring  colors  softly  blend  in  the 
white  light  of  the  eternal  truth  of  God. 


THE  CLIMAX  OF  ALL  REVELATION        297 

Many  a  difficult  problem  is  measurably  relieved 
by  being  clearly  stated.  With  all  the  limitations, 
constitutional  and  incidental,  which  beset  our 
knowledge,  we  submit  that  an  inquiring  mind  gets 
unspeakable  relief  when  it  finds  that  no  positive 
contradictions  stand,  like  the  lions  in  Pilgrim's 
path,  to  forbid  its  forward  passage. 

If  Christianity  and  the  cosmos  contradict  each 
other,  the  death  knell  has  been  sounded  for 
Christian  faith  in  every  intellectually  honest  mind. 
If  science  and  the  Bible,  if  nature  and  religion, 
if  the  Logos,  self-revealing  in  the  cosmos,  and 
the  Logos,  self- revealing  in  the  Christos,  posi- 
tively clash,  then  Christianity  must  give  up  the 
ghost,  and  the  disciple  of  Jesus  must  bury  his 
reason,  not  at  the  goal  but  at  the  starting  point 
of  his  irrational,  foolhardy,  quixotic  pilgrimage. 

We  believe  it  is  not  so.  We  believe  that  any 
scheme  of  thought,  scientific,  philosophic,  ethical, 
historical,  or  religious,  which  presumes  to  be  com- 
prehensive, and  which  does  not  have  a  large  place 
at  the  center  for  a  Christ-culminating,  cross- 
crowned  redemptive  revelation,  falls  short  of  its 
pretensions,  and,  at  least,  by  its  inadequateness,  is 
so  far  forth  misleading  and  untrue.  We  believe 
that  the  cosmos  and  the  Christ  are  historically 
incomplete,  each  without  the  other.     The  genesis, 


298  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

the  development,  and  the  consummation,  of  the 
cosmic  course  yield  their  richest  meanings  only  to 
him  who  studies  them  in  the  light  of  Him  by 
whom  and  unto  whom  they  are  and  were  created. 
There  is  an  unexplored  remainder  surviving  our 
best  endeavors  after  truth.  The  mystery  of  sin  is 
the  mother  mystery  of  all  others ;  but  in  Christ  we 
have  the  mother  solution  of  them  all. 

"The  acknowledgment  of  God  in  Christ 
Accepted  by  thy  reason,  solves  for  thee 
All  questions  in  the  earth  and  out  of  it, 
And  has  so  far  advanced  thee  to  be  wise." 

We  should  hesitate  at  believing  were  there  no 
mysteries  to  us  in  the  doings  and  dealings  of  the 
Divine.  Sin  hides  from  our  reason  its  reason 
simply  because  it  has  none.  Yet  the  grace  of 
God  were  forever  hidden  from  man  were  there  not 
rebellious  sinners  to  be  saved ;  the  father's  forgiv- 
ing love  were,  in  all  the  richness  of  its  fullness, 
unrevealed  had  not  the  prodigal  occasioned  and 
elicited  its  manifestations. 

Man  partly  is  and  wholly  hopes  to  be. 
Such  progress  could  no  more  attend  his  soul 
Were  all  it  struggles  after  found  at  first 
And  guesses  changed  to  knowledge  absolute, 
Than  motion  wait  his  body,  were  all  else 


THE  CLIMAX  OF  ALL  REVELATION        299 

Than  it  the  solid  earth  on  every  side, 
Where  now  through  space  he  moves  from  rest  to  rest. 
Man,  therefore,  thus  conditioned,  must  expect 
He  could  not,  what  he  knows  now,  know  at  first." 

There  was  a  deep  scarlet  wound  on  the  face  of 
the  cosmos  which  God  had  created.  But  the 
gentle  hand  of  the  Creator  never  put  it  there.  If 
He  was  to  people  His  world  with  creatures  in  His 
image, fair  objects  of  His  complacency, and  capable 
of  reciprocation  in  innocence  and  joy,  then  those 
creatures  must  be  endowed  with  the  capacity  of 
disobedience,  self-alienation,  and  sin.  This  dark 
possibility  strangely  emerged  into  a  dread  actuality, 
and  the  cosmos  is  cursed  by  the  consequent  blight. 
Man  did  it,  not  God ;  but  God  forthwith  provided 
and  presented  a  delivererance  and  a  Deliverer. 
The  ugly  gash  is  healing,  and  will  be  healed  at 
last ;  but  the  indelible  scar  remains.  Despite  the 
scar,  the  cosmos  and  the  Christos,  alike  revela- 
tions of  the  eternal  Logos,  who  is  none  other 
than  the  ever  self-manifesting  Theos,  by  overarch- 
ing the  mystery,  quiet  the  eagerness  of  the  inquir- 
ing spirit,  give  peace  to  the  restlessly  troubled 
conscience,  and  promise  hope  to  the  longings  of 
the  hungry  heart. 


SYLLABUS 


SUBJECT 
THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 


LECTURE  I 

THE  UNITY  OF  TRUTH 

I.  Unity :  An  Assumption,  necessary  and  significant ; — yet 
sometimes  challenged.  The  WHOLE,  an  Organic 
Unit — a  Uni-verse  ; — the  Theocosm.  Contemporaneity 
and  Continuity.  The  latter  distinguished  from  Evo- 
lution. 
II.  Truth  :  In  the  Thing?  or  in  the  Thought?  Renascence  of 
Idealism.  Realism.  Both  easily  proven  and  dis- 
proves Theological  Interest  in  the  Conflict  vital, 
though  limited.  "  Idealism,"  an  overloaded  term.  A 
True  Idealism.  Truth  in  the  Thing  as  Expression  of 
the  Thought. 

All  Truth  is  Thought.  Comprehensive  Unity  of  Truth 
answers  to  Encyclopedic  Impulse  of  Mind.  This  Im- 
pulse Baffled  ;— Why  ? 

Some  Denials  of  Unity  of  Truth.  Concerning  Kant's  An- 
tinomies. Genealogy  of  Modern  Agnosticism.  Kant 
(negative  side),  Hamilton,  Mansel,  Spencer.  Some 
Theological  Counterparts  ; — Ritschlianism.  Benjamin 
Kidd's  "Ultra-rational  Religion.''     Faith  not  Folly. 

3°i 


302  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

Science  includes  the  Sciences.  Dividing  lines  imaginary. 
Notwithstanding  persistent  Breaks,  the  Oneness  of 
Truth  is  always  assumed. 

LECTURE  II 

MODES  OF  APPROACHING  THE  COSMOS 

Assumption  of  Preceding  Lecture  Involved  in  all  World- 
study.  Denied  in  Bradley's  Appearance  and  Reality. 
World  survives  Bradley. 

Materialistic  monopolization  of  the  word  "  Science."  Three 
reasons  for  this  :  ( I )  Only  the  material  yields  to  sensi- 
ble tests ;  (2)  It  is  argued  that  only  the  material  is 
"natural";  (3)  Evolutionary  philosophy  makes  cos- 
rnical  programme  all-comprehending.  Science  means 
method,  not  material. 

Two  Methods  of  Approaching  the  Cosmos :  The  A  priori 
and  the  A  posteriori. 
I.  The  First  is  neither  wholly  out-of-date  nor  wholly  wrong. 
Hegel,  Spinoza.  The  Science  of  the  Arm-chair  pre- 
carious. "  Pure,"  fact-ignoring  Philosophy  ;  Coleridge. 
World-spinning  a  Harmless  Pastime.  Philosophy  may 
descend  from  World-making  to  World-criticizing. 
Alphonso  of  Castile.  Qualifications  of  the  World- 
critic.      Leibnitz,  Von  Hartmann. 

The  World  disappoints  Ideals  :  Why  ?    Two  Reasons  given  : 

(1)  God  Infinitely  Free  in  Ordering  His  World-plan; 

(2)  World-critic  unequal  to  his  Task. 

II.  Empirical  World-study.  Favorite  Method  in  Modern 
Thought.  Empiricism  not  Self-based.  Bare  Empiri- 
cism Veiled  Agnosticism.  Presuppositions  Unavoida- 
ble. All  Science  really  Intellectual  Intercourse.  Pro- 
fessor Knight.  Kinship  of  Divine  and  Human. 
Right  World-knowing  blends  Inductive  and  Deductive. 
Something  Posited,  and  that  something  read  into  the 
World.      Mr.   Fiske's  name  " Cosmic"   for  his   Phi- 


SYLLABUS  303 

losophy  Criticized.    World-theories  not  Predeterminable 
only  by  a  priori  "  Must." 

LECTURE  III 

THE  EMPIRICAL  SURPRISE 

Actual  World  Disappoints  a  priori  Ideals.  Fault  not 
altogether  on  side  of  Ideals.  World-ideals  disen- 
chanted by  World-seeing.  Gravamen  of  Difficulty  is 
SIN. 

Two  Important  Preliminary  Considerations:  (1)  God 
must  still  be  God.  J.  S.  Mill  discussed.  (2)  Sin  must 
still  be  Sin.  Evolutionary  theories  discussed.  Brown- 
ing, Tennyson.  But  these  Considerations  accentuate 
the  Difficulty. 
I.  If  God  is  good,  then  a  World  He  has  made  is  good,  also. 
II.  There  is  Sin  in  the  World.  To  deny  this  is  to  belie  Con- 
sciousness. 

III.  Solution   must   lie   in    Independence   of   the    Creature ; 

Midler;  Jowett's  Remark.     Functions  of  Personality. 

IV.  Man,  the  Person,  is  Free.     Testimony  of  Consciousness. 

Three  mistakes  in  reading  this  testimony  :  It  does  not 
testify  ( I )  that  we  are  free  to  do  what  we  choose  to  do ; 
(2)  Concerning  a  Plan  of  which  our  Choice  may  be  a 
Contributory  Part ;    (3)    Nor  that  we  have  power  to 
choose  other  than  we  do  choose  any  more  than  to  do 
other  than  we  do  do.     Pluri-efficiency  of  Will  an  In- 
ference at  best. 
V.  Freedom  involves  Spontaneity  and  Rationality.     Evil  of 
Undue  Emphasis  on  former. 
VI.   Formally,  Sin  is  non-compliance  with  the  Divine  Will. 
VII.  In  First  Instance,  Power  to  Choose  Involved  Power  to 
Choose  Wrongly. 
VIII.  Human  Race,  Constitutionally,  an  Organic  Unit. 
IX.  In  Virtue  of  Man's  Organic  Relations  with  the  Cosmos, 
His  Sin  Entailed  Cosmical  Disasters. 


304  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

X.  Therefore,  the  Actual  World  is  not  Ideally  Rational  or 
Moral.  Sin  is  Irrational,  i.  e.,  without  a  Possible 
Rationale.  Hence  Sin  is  Everlasting  Absurdity  to 
Reason  and  Impertinence  to  Righteousness. 


LECTURE  IV 

ETHICAL  VERSIONS  OF  THE  COSMOS 

The  Wrongs  in  the  World  are  Fault  of  the  World,  not  of  its 
Creator.  Three  Hypotheses  named  in  Evil  and  Evo- 
lution :  (i)  They  are  a  Part  of  God's  Scheme;  (2) 
Undesigned  and  Unavoidable  Faults,  Incident  to  it; 
(3)  "An  Enemy  Hath  Done  This."  First  and  third 
not   Mutually  Exclusive. 

Natural  Science,  as  Exegesis  of  Cosmos,  as  Precarious  as 
Biblical  Exegesis.  Intelligence  of  Expert  not  needed 
for  Jury  duty. 

In  Aiming  at  Correct  Ethical  Estimate  of  Cosmos,  Two 
Methods  Possible  :  ( 1 )  Posit  the  Cosmical  and  Work 
Up;  (2)  Posit  the  Ethical  and  Work  Down.  The 
Former,  John  Fiske's  Method ;  the  Second,  Henry 
Drummond's.  The  Older  Darwinism.  Huxley's 
"Evolution  and  Ethics,"  Suggestive  of  Paul's  Na- 
ture and  Grace. 

Theodicy  of  Dualism.  Revived  by  Mr.  Mill ;  Argued  in 
Anonymous  Evil  and  Evolution. 

Evolution  Influential  in  Modern  Thought.  In  Widest  Sense, 
Evolution  Self-evident ;  Le  Conte.  Influence  of  Evo- 
lution Theories  upon  Religion.  Griffith-Jones's  The 
Ascent  Through  Christ.  Evolution  often  Claims  too 
much.  Some  Severe  Theological  Tests  Named.  ( 1 ) 
Sin.  (2)  Christianity;  (a)  Individual  Redemption, 
(b)  Historical  Force.  (3)  Christ.  Forest's  Criticism 
of  Le  Conte.  Even  if  Evolution  be  a  World-pro- 
gramme, not  a  World-rationale. 


SYLLABUS  305 

LECTURE  V 

MAN  AS  FACTOR  IN  THE  COSMOS 

Twofold  Relation  of  Man  to  the  Cosmos :  ( 1 )  He  is  in  it, 
part  of  it ;  (2)  He  is  above  it,  outside  of  it. 

The  Former,  Theme  of  Fifth  Lecture ;  the  Latter,  Theme 
of  Sixth.  Man's  Composition  Twofold  :  Spiritual  and 
Material.  Each  has  been  denied  ;  Hence,  Materialism 
and  Spiritualism.     Pure  Monist  is  Indifferent  Which. 

Man  Viewed  as  a  Final  Product  of  Cosmical  Evolution. 
Sin  Naturalized  and  Normalized  is  Sin  Abolished. 

Christian  Doctrine  of  Sin  Determined  by  Scriptures.  Man's 
Sin  Blights  not  only  Himself,  but  also  his  Home, — i.  e., 
the  Cosmos.  His  Cosmical  Relations  not  Destroyed  but 
Disturbed. 

First  Query :  Does  this  not  overthrow  Natural  Theology  ? 
No ;  For  not  the  Cosmical  Order  but  the  Perfection  of  it 
has  been  affected. 

Second  Query  :  Are  Cosmical  Laws  Subject  to  or  Contingent 
upon  Man's  Obedience?  Empirical  Science  can  never 
Prove  the  Present  Order  Normal ;  Many  considerations 
Point  to  the  Other  Conclusion. 

Third  Query:  Is  Death  in  the  Cosmos  Due  to  Sin?  Ques- 
tion has  twofold  scope:  (1)  Sub-human  life;  (2)  Man. 
Little  reason  to  believe  that  ''  Death  "  is  to  Brutes  what 
it  is  to  Man.     Wallace,  Shaler. 

With  Man,  Death  Apart  from  Sin  something  Different  from 
what  sinful  Men  know.  Death  not  the  only  conceiva- 
ble Destiny  of  Mortality.  Translations.  Death's  Sting 
is  Sin  ;  Sting  is  Extracted  when  Sin  is  Removed. 

Fourth  Query  :  Must  Natural  Ethics  go  ?  Double  sense  of 
"  Nature."  Naturam  Prosequi  may  be  either  good  or 
bad  motto.  Dr.  James  Kidd's  Self-realization  versus 
Self-gratification.  Realism  in  Modern  Literature. 
Christum  Prosequi:  Self-realization  reached  through 
Self-abnegation. 
20 


306  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

LECTURE  VI 

MAN  AS  SPECTATOR  OF  THE  COSMOS 

Man  only  is  fully  Self-conscious ;  Hence  the  only  Knower, 
in  fullest  sense.  Man  the  only  Terrestrial  Scientist. 
All  Knowledge,  Intercourse  between  Egos.  This  is 
Theism,  Ready-made.  But  is  it  also  Pantheism  ?  That 
is  to  say,  is  the  known  Cosmos  an  Alter  Ego  ? 

Large  Function  of  Symbols  in  all  Knowledge.  Recejac 
verstis  Royce.  The  Cosmos,  a  Symbol.  Hence  Re- 
lated to  a  Logos.  Common  Meaning  of  "Logos." 
Bigg,  Purves. 

But  granted  Cosmos  is  a  Symbol,  Can  we  know  it?  Advan- 
tages and  Disadvantages  of  Agnosticism  in  arguing  in 
Self-defense.  Being  and  Seeming ;  Seeming,  always 
Seeming  To  Be.  Value  of  Logic.  A  Lie  may  be 
Logical  ;  John  Burroughs  ;   Romanes  ;   C.  Hodge. 

Is  God  a  Person, — i.  e.,  Personal?  Spinoza's  Objection  that 
the  Infinite  cannot  be  Personal  has  given  way  to 
Lotze's  that  Only  the  Infinite  can  be  truly  Personal. 
God's  "  Pale  Copy."  God  not  limited  nor  dishonored 
by  calling  Him  Personal.  Supra-personality,  pedantic 
nonsense.  D'Arcy's  Conception  of  God  as  Personal 
and  Supra-personal  Untenable.  Hamilton's  Regula- 
tive Knowledge.  Calvin.  Spencerian  Dread  of  An- 
thropomorphic Theism,  Gratuitous.  Qua/is  Homo, 
Talis  Deus. 

LECTURE  VII 

THE  COSMOS  AND  SPECIAL  REVELATION 

Three  elements  in  any  Revelation  :  (i)  Ego  Revealing  ;  (2) 
Ego  Addressed;  (3)  Certain  Relation  between  the 
Two.  This  third  Element,  Sin  has  Disturbed  ;  in  two 
ways:  (1)  Man's  Powers  Vitiated.  Edwards.  (2) 
Cosmos  out  of  Poise.  Nature,  especially  Including 
Man,  is  now  ^///nature. 


SYLLABUS  307 

Revelation  Succeeds,  as  such,  only  when  it  actually  Reveals. 
Natural  Revelation,  thus  tested,  partially  fails — i.  e.,  if 
Natural  Revelation  the  only  one,  Revelation  Fails. 
Man  at  best  could  have  only  Incorrect  and  Misleading 
Conception  of  God. 

Hence  the  (i)  Occasion  and  (2)  Need  of  Another  Revela- 
tion. Variously  called  Special,  Supernatural,  Gracious. 
The  Salvable  unit  is  the  Cosmos — i.  <?.,  Man,  the  Race, 
Homo — in  his  Envii-onment,  which  is  the  Cosmos. 

This  Gracious  Revelation,  ipso  facto,  susceptible  of  human 
Cognition  and  Experience.  Philosophical  Categories 
and  Formulas. 

Four  Conceivable  Relations  which  Gracious  Revelation  sus- 
tains to  Cosmos. 
I.  Identity,  Either  Naturalism  or  Pantheism. 
II.  Mutual  Antagonism.  Two  Cautions:  (1)  World  we  see  not 
Pure  Product  of  God  ;  (2)  Neither  is  the  Special  Reve- 
lation which  we  see.  If  this  Relation  is  a  Finality, 
Skepticism,  Goal  of  all  Rational  Thought. 

III.  Gracious  supplants  the  Natural.     Ritschlianism.     Lack  of 

Consistency ;  Debatable  Merit. 

IV.  The  Gracious  Supplements,  Interprets,  Confirms  the  Nat- 

ural.    Kuyper.     True  Rationale'  of  Miracles.     Chris- 
tianity as  a  Book-religion.      Relation  of  Bible  to  Special 
Revelation. 
Is  Christianity  Susceptible  of  Philosophical  Formulation? 
Edwards,  Hegel,  Coleridge. 

LECTURE  VIII 

THE    INCARNATION    THE    CONGRUOUS    CLIMAX    OF 
ALL    REVELATION 

Special  Revelation  Essentially  Redemption.  Yet  has  its 
Placement  in  Cosmical  History.  Logos  becomes  cos- 
mical.  However,  from  its  very  design,  Immune  against 
Sin.    Martineau.     Mysticism.     Inspiration.     Christian- 


308  THE  COSMOS  AND  THE  LOGOS 

ity  less  than  Itself  if  Inspiration  lacking.  Inspiration 
and  Reformed  Theology.  The  Logos  Immateriated  in 
Cosmos,  Inscripturated  in  Scripture.  A  Marked  Ad- 
vance. Not  yet  Complete.  Presumptions,  Metaphysi- 
cal and  Soteriological,  in  favor  of  Incarnation  of  the 
Logos.  Incarnation  the  Inevitable,  though  Free,  Cul- 
mination of  Gracious  Revelation.  Relation  of  the 
Logos  Incarnate  in  Jesus  Christ  to  the  Logos  Inscrip- 
turate  in  the  Scriptures.  The  Incarnation  Free,  Hence 
Voluntary. 

Soteriological  Incarnation  Harmonizes  with  Cosmical  Scheme. 

Does  Gracious  Revelation  Accomplish  its  Purpose  ?  Does 
it  Redeem  the  Cosmos?  (i)  As  in  Adam  the  Race 
died,  so  in  Christ  the  Race  is  made  alive.  (2)  The 
Saved  are  to  the  Lost  as  the  Innumerable  Multitude  of 
the  Organic  Unity  of  the  Race,  to  a  Scattering  Unor- 
ganized Few.  Kuyper;  Charles  Hodge.  (3)  Old 
Problem  of  Sin  still  Persists.  "Eternity"  of  Sin 
does  not  deepen  Mystery.     Concluding  Reflections. 


INDEX 


Academic  world-framers  disappointed,  HI. 

Actual,  why  not  tally  with  ideal,  54. 

Adam:  not  "  a  savage,"  139;  not  "  civilized,"  139;  the  first  and 

the  second,  291. 
Agnostic:  advantage  and  disadvantage  of,  199;  and  Westminster 

Confession  of  Faith,  18. 
Agnosticism  and  evolution,  132;  not  primarily  theological,  198; 

the  challenge  of,  197  ;  when  involved  in  monism,  155. 
Alphonso  of  Castile,  52. 

Amiel,  Henri-Frederic,  Christianity  absorbing  pantheism,  18. 
Anthropomorphism:  Spencer  on,  218;  unavoidable,  275. 
Apologetics  outlawed,  243. 
Appearance  and  Reality,  Bradley's,  40. 
Appearance,  no  quarrel  with  reality,  205. 
Ascent,  the,  through  Christ,  discussed,  134. 

Atheism  :  conceiving  the  God  it  denies,  9;  Lord  Bacon  on,  192. 
Augustine:  on  death,  176;  on  effect  of  sin,  165 ;  on  knowledge, 

220 ;  on  loss  of  freedom  of  will,  95. 
Augustinian  thinkers  and  inspiration,  269. 

Bacon,  Lord  :  on  atheism,  192;  on  mastering  nature,  165. 
Balfour,  A.  J.  :  on  battles  of  theology,  16;  on  naturalism,  239. 
Being  versus  seeming,  201-204. 

Bible:  as  a  book  only,  250;  double  authorship  of,  271 ;  history 
of,  271 ;  Why  revered  by  Protestants,  250;  why  sacred,  249. 
Bigg,  Dr.  Charles,  on  the  Logos,  197. 
Blougram,  Bishop,  on  remaking  self,  1S1. 
Bowne,  Professor  B.  P.,  on  idealism,  20. 

3°9 


310  INDEX 

Bradley's  Appearance  and  Reality,  40. 

Browning  on  "  The  acknowledgment  of  Christ,"  298. 

Browning's :    Bishop  Blougram  quoted,    83 ;    Pietro   of  Abano 

quoted,  84;   Reverie  quoted,  So;  Sordello  quoted,  84. 
Burroughs,  John,  quoted,  208. 
Bushnell,  H.,  on  death,  178. 
Butler,  Bishop,  on  folly  of  imagining  model  worlds,  48. 

Caird,  Dr.  Ed.,  on  influence  of  principle  of  development,  129. 

Calvin  :  on  knowledge  of  God,  217;  on  loss  of  freedom  of  will, 
95 ;  on  nature  of  freedom,  90. 

Calvinism  allows  no  afterthoughts  in  God,  287. 

Carlyle  on  aim  of  American  huntsman,  8. 

Choice  :  in  first  instance  involved  alternativity,  99 ;  power  of 
contrary,  defined,  99. 

Christ:  culmination  of  Christianity,  279,  282;  relation  of,  to 
Scripture,  280,  281 ;  relation  of,  to  the  cosmos,  279. 

Christianity:  as  a  book  religion,  248;  as  scientific,  251;  not  a 
human  philosophy,  259. 

Christianity  Supernatural  quoted,  247. 

Civilization:  as  evolution,  159;  essentially  social,  139. 

Coleridge:  indifference  to  facts,  51 ;  on  distinction  between  ex- 
plaining and  accounting  for,  106;  on  mad  men,  200;  on 
pantheism  as  painted  atheism,  17;  on  reason,  259;  on  re- 
vealed religion,  229;  on  the  indemonstrable  in  the  demon- 
stration, 4. 

Completeness  of  living,  157. 

Concepts  and  percepts,  189. 

Conflict  between  science  and  theology,  imaginary,  1 14. 

Contradiction :  between  nature  and  religion,  241 ;  none  between 
the  cosmos  and  Christianity,  297 ;  of  faith  and  reason  impos- 
sible, 242. 

Cosmic  philosophy,  what  it  repudiates,  118. 

Cosmical  effects  of  sin,  scriptural,  103. 

Cosmos:  a  symbol,  196;  as  an  organism,  not  a  mechanism,  24; 
as  a  revelation,  223,  224;  disorganized,  164;  gospel  of,  171; 


INDEX  311 

man's  twofold  relation  to,  149;  palingenesis  of,  233,  234; 
sharing  penalty  of  sin,  161 ;  the  object  of  salvation,  232. 
Creator  revealed  in  the  creature,  273. 

Dante  on  world's  order,  168. 

D'Arcy  on  God's  personality,  214,  215. 

Darwinism,  harsh  view  of  nature,  123. 

Death:  effects  of  grace  on,  177  ;  in  human  beings,  176;  in  sub- 
human life,  174;  meaning  of,  173. 

Depravity,  doctrine  of  total,  264. 

Describing  versus  justifying,  106. 

Dogmatism,  a  foe  to  truth,  116. 

Dreams,  psychology  of,  188. 

Drummond,  Professor  H. :  and  Fiske,  nearly  coming  together,  121 ; 
an  ordained  minister,  120;  evolution  as  history,  II,  131; 
reading  ethics  in  the  cosmos,  121 ;  The  Ascent  of  A/an,  re- 
versing Natural  Law  in  the  Spiritual  World,  120. 

Dryden  quoted,  76. 

DuBois  Reymond  on  the  atom,  64. 

Edwards  :  and  pantheism,  240 ;  on  effects  of  sin,  225. 

Edwards,  J.,  on  sin  as  of  the  will,  97. 

Effects  of  sin :  Edwards  on,  225  ;  on  the  world,  226. 

Election :  difficulty  in,  294 ;  versus  selection,  295. 

Ellicott,  Bishop,  on  Romans  8 :  19-23,  178. 

Emmons  and  pantheism,  240. 

Empiricism,  necessary  presuppositions  of,  59. 

Energy  of  God,  cosmical  and  gracious,  265. 

Eschatology,  pessimistic  view  of,  discussed,  292. 

Ethical  estimate  of  cosmos,  two  methods  of,  117. 

Evil  and  Evolution :  a  personal  devil,  128;  three  hypotheses  of, 
112. 

Evolution :  a  description,  not  a  rationale,  145  ;  and  agnosticism, 
132;  and  Christ,  142;  and  Christianity,  140;  and  miracles, 
133;  and  regeneration,  141 ;  and  sin,  139;  and  the  Incarna- 
tion, 142;  as  based  on  continuity,  II ;  as  civilization,  159; 


3i2  INDEX 

gaps,  the,  of,  133;  influence  of,  in  modern  thought,  129;  in 
what  sense,  self-evident,  130;  means  a  theological  recon- 
struction, 132;  Spencer's  naturalistic,  claims  too  much,  138; 
the  limits  of,  145;  the  shortcomings  of,  144;  what  it  must 
do,  136. 
Experience  and  revelation,  236. 

Faculties,  not  agencies,  60. 

Fairbairn  on  source  of  religious  knowledge,  2S0. 

Fiske,  John:  and  Drummond,  nearly  coming  together,  121;  fol- 
lowing Mr.  Spencer,  118;  later  books  inconsistent  with  his 
Cosmic  Philosophy,  122;  on  "better"  and  "worse,"  158;  on 
"completeness  of  living,"  157;  on  theistic  de-anthropomor- 
phization,  275;  optimistic  view  of  cosmos,  126;  use  of  term 
cosmic,  67. 

Freedom:  and  necessity,  285;  implicates  of,  94;  limitations  of 
consciousness  of,  91  ;  of  man,  mistaken  interpretation  of, 
89 ;  of  will,  how  lost  by  the  fall,  95. 

Freedomist  and  universal  redemption,  294. 

Gaps,  the,  of  evolution,  133. 

Gnosis  and  Pistis,  254. 

Goat,  the  illustration  by,  201. 

God:  as  a  person,  210,  211,  212;  being  and  attributes  of,  216; 

either  personal  or  impersonal,  214. 
Goodness  of  a  person  and  of  a  thing,  162. 
Grace  :  as  supplanting  Nature,  242 ;  revelation  of,  230. 
Gravitation  might  have  been  different,  55. 
Greece,  philosophy  of,  and  Christianity,  238. 
Griffith-Jones'  The  Ascent  through  Christ,  135. 

Hamilton,  Gail,  in  North  American  Reviav,  296. 

Hamilton,  Sir  W.:  on  regulative  knowledge,  216;  on  theology 

in  philosophy,  16;  on  the  unknown  God,  218. 
Hardy's  realism,  1 82. 
Harnack  on  cosmological  Christology,  243. 


INDEX  313 

Harris,  Professor  S.,  on  the  absolute  reason,  61. 

Hartmann  on  creation  as  a  crime,  53. 

Hatch  on  philosophy  and  Christianity,  237. 

Hegel :  diary  of,  51 ;  on  the  rational  as  the  real,  50;  preferred  to 

Huxley,  33. 
Hell :  corollary  from  sin,  293;  less  mysterious  than  sin,  293. 
Helmholtz  on  the  eye,  57. 
Herrmann  quoted,  243. 
History,  a  poem,  49. 
Hodge,  Dr.  C. :  on  reason  and  faith,  209 ;  on  the  number  of  the 

finally  lost,  292. 
Howison,  Professor  G.  H.,  The  Limits  of  Evolution,  145. 
Huxley,  Professor  T.  H.  :    in  Romanes  lecture,   123;  on  spirit 

versus  matter,  154. 

Idealism:  easily  proved  and  disproved,  15;  in  what  sense  ac- 
cepted, 20,  22;  judged  by  the  realist,  19;  necessary  to  theism, 
194;  renascence  of,  13;  term  of  uncertain  signification,  151; 
the  truth  in,  193;  versus  realism,  14. 

Ideals  of  sinful  men,  1 80. 

Identity  of  special  and  cosmical  revelation,  239. 

Immanence  of  God,  272,  273;  no  new  find,  138. 

Impersonality  of  God,  in  pantheism,  214. 

Incarnation:  adequate  valuation  of,  289;  apart  from  sin,  283, 
284;  culminating  revelation,  277;  metaphysical  necessity 
of,  283;  presumptions  favoring,  276;  primarily  voluntary, 
286;  relation  of,  to  the  Atonement,  283;  soteriologically 
motived,  283. 

Infants,  dying,  292. 

Ingersoll,  Colonel  R.,  on  John  Fiske,  123. 

Inspiration:  consistent  with  psychological  freedom,  271;  doctrine 
of,  discussed,  268;  essential  to  Christianity,  269. 

Instinct,  theodicy  of,  179. 

Intercourse,  human,  mediate,  195. 

Iverach,  Professor  J. :  acceptance  of  idealism,  21 ;  on  Kidd's 
Social  Evolution,  30. 


314  INDEX 

James,  Professor  Wm.  :  on  knowing,  189;  world  a  universe, 
not  a  multiversc,  81. 

Jevons,  on  infinite  choice  of  Creator,  54. 

Jourdain,  M.,  talking  prose  without  knowing  it,  6. 

Jowett,  Professor :  on  first  and  second  causes,  88 ;  on  the  deduc- 
tive method,  46. 

Kaftan  quoted,  243. 

Kant:  ancestor  of  Sir  W.  Hamilton,  28;  and  H.  Spencer,  28; 
and  Mansel,  28;  and  Ritschlianism,  29,  30;  Critique  of  the 
Pure  Reason,  26;  influence  of  "antinomies"  of,  28. 

Kelvin,  Lord :  on  luminiferous  ether,  63 ;  on  nature's  tricks,  166. 

Kidd,  Benjamin,  Social  Evolution  of,  discussed,  30. 

Kidd,  Dr.  J.,  on  Self-realization,  180. 

Kinship  of  God  and  man,  274-279. 

Knight,  Professor  Wm.,  on  universe  as  apocalypse  of  mind,  62. 

Knowledge,  presupposition  of,  190. 

Koran,  dictation  of,  266. 

Kuyper,  Dr.  A.:  on  atheism,  10;  on  Calvinism  as  embracing  eter- 
nal issues,  295  ;  on  idolatry,  227 ;  on  special  revelation,  245 ; 
on  the  Bible,  249;  on  the  race  as  saved,  291. 

Ladd,  Professor  G.  T. :  on  cognition  as  intercourse  of  minds, 
21 ;  quoted,  191. 

LeConte,  Professor  J. :  attempt  to  evolutionize  Christ,  143 ;  on 
evolution  as  axiomatic,  II,  131 ;  on  theological  revolution 
involved  in  evolution,  132;  on  the  two  dogmatisms,  116. 

Leibnitz,  any  created  world  imperfect,  52. 

Lessing  on  truth  versus  pursuit  of  truth,  23. 

Logic:  folly  of  slandering,  206;  purely  formal,  207. 

Logos:  the,  discussed,  197;  immateriated  in  the  Bible,  272. 

Lotze  :  on  God  as  personal,  210;  on  history  as  a  poem,  49. 

Lowell  on  evolution,  157. 

Man:  above  the  cosmos,  150;  as  matter  only,  153;  as  only  na- 
ture's product,  156;  as  self-knower,  188;  created  with  power, 


INDEX  315 

160 ;  naturalistic  theory  of,  156;  of  twofold  composition,  151 ; 
purely  natural,  150;  seer  and  seen,  188;  self-conscious,  187; 
the  only  scientist,  190;  unnatural,  179. 

Man's  twofold  nature,  150. 

Man's  twofold  relation  to  cosmos,  149. 

Mansel,  faith  made  impossible  by,  32. 

Martineau,  Dr.  J.  :  objection  to  revelation,  267,  268 ;  on  agnos- 
ticism, 29;  on  natural  and  revealed  religion,  230;  on  natu- 
ralizing ethics,  127;  on  problem  of  sin,  78. 

Maxwell,  Clerk,  on  philosophy  without  God,  192. 

Men,  not  souls  only,  to  be  saved,  233. 

Metaphysics  as  bane  of  Christianity,  244. 

Mill,  J.  S. :  definitions  of  science  of,  43;  dualism  of,  79;  dual- 
istic  views  of,  criticized,  80. 

Miracles  :  and  evolution,  133 ;  and  laws  of  reason,  56;  and  special 
revelation,  246 ;  and  the  supernatural,  247 ;  when  improbable, 
278;  when  probable,  278. 

Monism:    spiritualistic,    152;    when   equivalent   to   agnosticism, 

155- 

Muller,   Dr.  J.  :  on  irrationalness  of  sin,    104;  on  meaning  of 

death,  177 ;  on  origin  of  sin,  87. 
Mysteries  and  faith,  255. 
Mystery  of  mysteries,  sin,  74,  104. 
Mysticism,  immediate  or  symbolical,  194. 

Natural  ethics  challenged,  178. 

Natural  theology  challenged,  169. 

Naturalism,  Balfour  on,  239. 

Nature:  supplanted  by  grace,  242;  unnatural,  179. 

Nature's  voice  muffled,  228. 

Necessity :  and  freedom,  2S5  ;  not  coercing  God,  228. 

Newman  on  natural  theology,  170. 

Order  of  nature  disturbed,  169. 

Ormund,  Professor,  on  world  as  ideal  unity,  25. 

Orr,  Professor  J. :  on  natural  and  moral  evil,  77;  on  science,  173; 


3i6  INDEX 

on  sin  apart  from  history  of  fall,  96 ;  on  the  foreordination 
of  sin,  287 ;  on  the  wider  scope  of  redemption,  289. 

Paganism,  origin  of,  226. 

Palingenesis  of  cosmos,  233-4. 

Pantheism:    as  corollary  from  idealism,   194;    denial  of  grace, 

240;   discussed,  240 ;    painted  atheism,  17. 
Partialism,  the  seat  of  the  difficulty,  294. 
Perceptions,  assumed  normal,  200. 
Percepts  and  concepts,  1S9. 
Personality  of  God,  210,  211,  212. 
Philo  on  the  Logos,  197. 
Philosophy  :  as  formulating  Christianity,  252 ;  as  world  criticism, 

52 ;  judged  by  its  theological  implications,  16. 
Pippa,  song  of,  69,  74. 
Plato,  the  Divine  philosopher,  259. 
Possibility,  not  in  purview  of  consciousness,  93. 
Power  posited  by  Spencer,  65. 
Presumptions  favoring  Incarnation,  276. 
Protestantism  and  the  Bible,  250. 
Purves,  Dr.  G.  T. :  on  Christ  as  the  climax,  284 ;  on  the  Logos, 

197. 

Race:  as  the  unit  in  salvation,  232;  falling  and  redeemed, 
290. 

Rationalism  and  faith,  257. 

Realism:  easily  proved  and  disproved,  15;  in  literature,  182; 
judged  by  the  idealist,  19;  versus  idealism,  14. 

Reality,  no  quarrel  with  appearance,  205. 

Reason,  human  and  divine,  the  same,  253. 

Recejac  on  mysticism,  194. 

Redemption :  embracing  creation,  28S ;  meaning  of  a  special  reve- 
lation, 263. 

Religion,  natural  and  revealed,  229. 

Renan  on  truth  of  indecision,  85. 

Revelation:  and  experience,  236;   as  reasonable,  256;   capable 


INDEX  317 

of  cognition,  235 ;  conditions  of  special,  263 ;  elements  in- 
volved in,  223 ;  in  the  cosmos,  223-4 ;  must  appeal  to 
reason,  31. 

Ritschl  on  natural  theology,  170. 

Ritschlianism  :  discussed,  243 ;  relation  of,  to  Kant,  29,  30. 

Romanes  lecture  of  Professor  Huxley,  123;  criticisms  of,  124; 
theologians'  attitude  toward,  125. 

Romanes,  Professor  G.  J.,  quoted,  208. 

Royce :  on  "as  if,"  206;  on  mysticism,  194. 

Samson,  not  at  first  conscious  of  his  weakness,  93. 

Saved,  the  comparative  number  of,  291. 

Scar  on  the  cosmos  made  by  man,  299. 

Schade  on  the  saved  world,  234. 

Schelling's  view  of  sin,  82,  8^. 

Schopenhauer  on  existence  as  evil,  53. 

Science;  and  facts,  173;  and  sin,  172;  as  commerce  of  minds, 
61;  as  critic  of  Christianity,  251 ;  infallibility  of,  172; 
method,  not  material,  45;  modern,  abandoned,  171 ;  natural, 
is  exegesis  of  cosmos,  112;  shifted  positions  of,  115;  versus 
the  unknowable,  63 ;  wrongly  confined  to  the  physical,  42. 

Scientist,  Huxley's  dislike  for  the  word,  42. 

Scott,  H.  M.,  on  philosophy  and  Christianity,  237. 

Scripture  and  special  revelation,  248. 

Seeming  versus  being,  201,  203,  204. 

Self-realization  versus  self-gratification,  181. 

Seth,  Professor  Andrew :  on  Appearance  and  Reality,  42 ;  on 
unity  of  the  cosmos,  3. 

Shaler,  Professor,  on  death,  174,  175. 

Shelley's:  Hellas  quoted,  50;  Magico  Prodigioso  on  created 
good,  86. 

Sin:  an  incident  in  plan  of  God,  289;  and  evolution,  1 39;  as  a 
necessary  stage,  159;  as  affecting  extra-mental  world,  102; 
as  fact  not  to  be  reasoned  away,  87;  as  original,  159;  Bible 
doctrine  of,  160;  conditions  grace,  231 ;  curse  of,  on  wider 
area,  163;   essentially  pathological,   106;    formally  defined, 


3i8  INDEX 

96;  irrational,  99-104;  origin  of,  in  creature's  independence, 
87;  penalty  of,  in  cosmos,  161;  primarily  in  the  will,  97; 
primarily  personal,  88 ;  the  great  interloper,  104;  the  occa- 
sion of  grace,  229,  231  ;  vitiating  man's  faculties,  226. 

Smyth,  Newman,  on  death,  174-177. 

Solidarity  of  mankind,  Reformed  theology  on,  101. 

Somerville,  Dr.  D.,  on  Romans  5,  290. 

Soteriological  character  of  special  revelation,  246. 

Spencer's;  First  Principles,  154;  relation  to  pantheism  and  ma- 
terialism, 240. 

Spinoza  on  personality  of  God,  210. 

Spinoza's  monism,  153. 

Supra-personality,  meaningless,  212. 

Symbols  in  intercourse,  195. 

Tennyson's  In  Memoriam  concerning  evil,  84. 

Tertullian  on  sin,  104. 

Theism,  ready-made,  192. 

Theocosm,  10. 

Theologian,  a  competent  juryman  in  natural  science,  115. 

Theology:  as  a  growing  science,  281;  natural,  challenged,  169; 

natural,  variously  interpreted,  170. 
Thompson,  Bishop  Hugh  Miller,  on  science,  113. 
Thought,  man's,  why  not  all  of  God's,  25. 
Truth  :  as  expression  of  thought,  23  ;  assumed  unity  of,  3,  24,  25, 

T)},,  34;  meaning  of,  12;  unity  of,  is  complex,  35. 

Unity  of  truth,  meaning  of,  7,  39. 
Unity,  organic,  of  human  race,  100. 
Universalism,  dogmatic,  as  fatalism,  294. 
Unknowable,  the,  versus  science,  63. 

Voluntary  versus  volitional,  89. 

WALLACE,  Mr.  A.  R.,  on  pain,  174. 

Ward,  Professor,  abstract  ideals,  not  actual,  57. 


INDEX  319 

Warfield,  Dr.  B.  B.,  on  the  Incarnation,  286,  288. 
Watson,  Dr.  J.,  on  racial  doctrines,  100. 
Westminster  Confession  on  God  as  author  of  sin,  86. 
Whedon,  Dr.  D.  D.,  on  voluntary  versus  volitional,  89. 
Whittier's  The  Eternal  Goodness  quoted,  81. 
World  :  affected  by  sin,  226;  a  symbol,  196;  beyond  man,  affected 
by  sin,  101 ;  of  to-day,  not  as  God  made  it,  241. 


Date  Due 

i 

• 

t 

